Re: Science Disproves Evolution

On May 10, 11:39 pm, abiele7...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On May 10, 3:27 pm, hbarwood <hbarw...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 10, 2:05 pm, Pahu <pah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Big Bang?

"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.

"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.

"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.

Steidl, pp. 207-208.

D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.

"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.

Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.

Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.

"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.

Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.

Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.

Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.

"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.

Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.

http://www.creationscience.com/

So your most up-to-date-reference is some 15 years old? Since
Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years,
you appear to have a poor grasp of the subject matter.

Perhaps I can offer an update.

The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with
very little or no basis in reality, except that the universe is
expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. The math
was invented by materialists in an effort to explain the observation
of our expanding universe and the known helium and deuterium
abundances found in the universe. The math is constantly being tweaked
in an effort to explain the big bang as well as the formation of
galaxies, stars, planets etc. As with biogeny, cosmogony has become
permeated with evolutionary assumptions and conclusions, yet, despite
this, the Big Bang points to an extremely fined tuned low entropic
beginning of our universe that suggest an uncaused cause, that must
exist, that caused the universe to come into existence, and many have
concluded the uncaused cause to be an intelligent being, the I AM, God
Himself.

Whenever problems arise, a big banger will just add some more
mathematics to the equation, thus we have this mysterious mathematical
'inflation' to help bring the Big Bang theory into agreement with
theoretical observations. If there was 'inflation' at all, then we do
not know what started the inflation and what caused the inflation to
suddenly stop.

Mathematical changes also resulted from the "Big Bangers" failure to
find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. Using their preconceived
materialistic worldview as a constraint, and their intelligence, big
bangers simply devised more mathematics to explain away their failure
to observe the predictions of the Big bang, and now the "Big Bangers"
have new mathematical reasons why we do not observe the predicted
gravitons, monopoles, etc. If they had found the predicted gravitons
and monopoles in the first place, they would not have bothered to add
the new math that makes them invisible.

Other problems with the Big Bang:

The BB Model has had only one successful prediction to support it, the
existence of a Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This background
radiation turned out to be approximately a flat 2.75K (from COBE
"Cosmic Background Explorer").

The one successful prediction (CBR) of the Big bang Theory may prove
to be its falsification. The CBR is too uniform. To get stars and
galaxies, there must have been a slight unevenness in the temperatures
of the early universe, causing gravity to vary throughout space and
thus causing clumping, etc. The Big Bang scientists involved were able
to calculate exactly what these variations in the CBR ought to be.
They sent the COBE satellite into space to search for these
variations. It would have been another strong confirmation for the Big
Bang Theory (at least for the surviving versions of it) had it not
been for the fact that COBE did not find any variation. Of course,
when you have fifty years of scientific effort, life-long careers, and
personal scientific achievement at stake, scientists do not take "NO"
for an answer, especially from some machine named COBE. With complex
statistical analysis of COBE's measurements, variations were allegedly
found. Then two additional published studies confirmed this analysis.

As one scientist put it, "Even if the temperature fluctuations turn
out to be real, it has generally been missed that these fluctuations
are an order of magnitude too low for the standard cosmology." Indeed
they were so low that COBE couldn't see them and even after the
statistical fudging of COBE's readings, no one was able to point to
any place in space where these alleged variations exist.


Not only is this a total distortion of the COBE findings, but
this has all been totally superseded by the WMAP results,
which were in remarkable agreement with the predictions
of inflationary cosmology models for the fine structure
of the CMB.

If you're going to cut and paste, at least cut and paste
up to date stuff.

-jc


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... predictions, but merely adjustments of theory to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Big Bang Theory
    ... As for the Big Bang, though, you refer to Ned Wright's cosmology ... This lets us watch the evolution of the Universe in action. ... -- We see galaxies rushing away from us and from each other. ... we find that they match the predictions. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Igniting the Big Bang
    ... But there is a great deal of evidence that the Universe ... matches predictions of the Big Bang. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... "And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful ... without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... "The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of ...
    (talk.origins)