Re: Science Disproves Evolution


abiele7000@xxxxxxx wrote:

The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with
very little or no basis in reality,

?? really? if it's mathematical then why did penzias and wilson win a
nobel prize for DISCOVERING the background radiation?

why did smoot et al win a nobel for discovering the anisotropies in
the radiation?

it's EXPERIMENTAL as well as THEORETICAL...a fact you're blissfully
unaware of

in addition, the bible:

never mentions nuclear fusion

never mentions quantum mechanics

never mentions relativity

yet you'd have us believe it's at the cutting edge of tomorrow's
science...and THAT after it can't explain TODAY"S science...


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.

but, says the creationist, the big bang is wrong. so it's right except
when it's wrong....


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.

uh, so? if science had all the answers...got to make them up...it
would be religion.


Mathematical changes also resulted from the "Big Bangers" failure to
find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc

he obviously doesn't realize there wasnt ONE 'big bang'...there were
several. that's good science...competing theories...competing ideas...

and some of them will be wrong.

he's not too aware of how science is done.

.. Using their preconceived
materialistic worldview as a constraint,

and where, in the entire history of religion, did a SUPERNATURAL
explanation ever prove to be right?

creationists keep saying supernaturalism is NEW idea when it's
actually OLD OLD OLD...and useless.

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).

'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play'?

uh what else DID you expect them to predict?...

and where's the BIBLICAL prediction for this? why do creationists come
out of the woodwork AFTER the scientists have made their discoveries.
if the bible is so powerful, why didn't creationists predict the
background radiation?

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.

uh, no, it's not. it's anisotropic to 1 part in 100,000. that's what
smoot won the nobel prize for discovering.

but you didn't know that...

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. I

COBE was not sensitive enough. that's why they did follow up work with
more sensitive instruments...to test the theoretical predications...


abiele's knowledge is out of date. he's obviously got an agenda....

and his theology is a failure. for 5000 years people tried 'god did
it'. it's got a 5000 year history of failure.

the bible is a failure as a science book. as i pointed out it doesn't
even mention the planets in our solar system, nor does it mention the
power that drives the stars

but to creationists it's amazing how it predicts TOMORROW'S science is
wrong only AFTER scientists have done their work.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with ... mathematics to the equation, thus we have this mysterious mathematical ... If there was ?inflation? ... find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. Using their preconceived ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "instant" of the Big-Bang
    ... Princeton University Press. ... If there is an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started ... started out as a quantum field (the false vacuum) that experienced a ... what I mean by you really need mathematics? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Talk about "Fucking the Troops Around"
    ... Tell me - the theory of the Big Bang tells us that the universe was created out of nothing. ... The Big Bang relies on the idea that we can see where the ENDS of the universe are and hence we can calculate the amount of time the universe has been here. ... And, say, why is it that the mathematics of nuclear fusion tell us that there is NO favoritism between forming protons and antiprotons, electrons or positrons. ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
    ... of the Big Bang are even written let alone understanding anything about ... a problem with the Big Bang. ... I didn't say anything about beliefs in God. ... the mathematics of the Big Bang as if you understood it, ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Checkmate, Atheists!
    ... of the Big Bang are even written let alone understanding anything ... a problem with the Big Bang. ... Bang but not some other nutjob's belief in God. ... the mathematics of the Big Bang as if you understood it, ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)