"New Scientist" published a paper signed by 33 secular cosmologists explaining what is wrong with the Big Bang theory. It was posted on line at cosmologystatement.org and additionally signed by hundreds of secular cosmologists.
Dr Hartnett showed that CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) actually poses problems for the big bang and supports creationist cosmologies. One problem is that the CMB seems to indicate a preferred frame of reference, contrary to the basic assumption behind the big bang. Another is that the total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. And this latest NASA report even said that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth, contrary to big bang predictions. And so on. Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmology-late-news-big.html#jCp
30 comments
Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems.
Yeah, a model that answers all tricky questions with "Goddidit" does not have the problem of being unable to answer anything. Even though you can't actually use it to predict anything, either.
Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems.
Yeah, but Genesis is so vague and lacking in specific detail that it's easy to hide potential problems with the creationist cosmology model.
Unless such detail is inferred and augmented after the fact. In which case, creationists are guilty of sin by adding to the Word of God.
Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems
Well my model has even less problems. I believe that the universe hatched from an interdimensional egg. It can't be proven wrong, makes no predictions, and doesn't have a holy book that makes categorically false statements (hi, Laban's goats) to accept.
meanwhile, in real science, yes, these conflicts happen all the time. That's how science is SUPPOSED to work. If there was never any honest dissent to established theories and facts then science would never move forward. I specify "honest dissent" because creationism's dissent is as honest as my belief in the universe coming from an egg. Actually, it's even less honest because given the right evidence, I could be convinced the universe came from an egg. Whereas creationists have been given evidence for 150 years and still have yet to accept it.
> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmology-late-news-big.html
That article is about how background radiation is leading them to think quantum fluctuations caused the early universe to be non-uniform, and not gravitational waves.
Both possibilities are Big Bang cosmology, you ignoramus!
"The magic man in the sky said 'this exists now because just because'" is not a theory, dumbass. It's giving up on establishing a theory, falling back on goddidit and moving on to easier subjects (easier for those with the barest traces of scientific understanding and reading comprehension, I mean).
Except that they said nothing about CMB disproving the big bang, instead they said that quantum fluctuations caused non-uniformity instead of gravitational waves.
Now I may only be a lowly aerospace engineer, but I don't make the connection between using quantum fluctuations to explain non-uniformity and throwing out the big bang theory in favor of creationism.
Its a modification to a theory, it happens all the time when new data is published or a new experiment is performed. We don't always get everything 100% correct, and the greatest strength of the scientific method is that theories can and do change when new data challenges it. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater because we thought that it was gravity before, gravity causing non-uniformity was not the defining characteristic of the big bang theory. It was a detail, that will now come into question and may change if the paper is verified by further study.
You dingbat, that reference is to YOIR COMMENT, here printed verbatim, and not to any data that would prove a point. And what in the blue-eyed-blazes is "creationist cosmology" when it's at home? A google search pulls up articles .... printed in the magazine "Creation"! Not knowing everything about the Big Bang, and not knowing everything about cosmic background radiation does not equal support for biblical creation.
Fundie math: unknown-1 plus unknown-2 plus n x unknown-n equals (waving hand wildly) "Ooh, teacher, I know, I know. It's god!". "Very good, Bob! Same as the last answer, and the one before that, and the one before that. You're going to get a good grade, I'm sure!"
"Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems."
No: they have other far, far, FAR more serious problems (including the little fact that they cannot be reconciled with observed reality).
"Creationist cosmology models do not have these problems."
Other than the 6,000 year thing I suppose not as MAGIC can be assumed to do just about anything.
This is "very smooth"?
image
Even if the Big Bang was shown to be wrong then your creation myth would be no more credible. What has your model correctly predicted? How does it better explain CMB, red shift, and the closer proximity of galaxies in the past? Why did God create trillions of other planets, stars, and galaxies when we're supposedly the focus of its attention?
I'm not a scientist, so I may not understand the lingo, but how does something "indicate a preferred frame of reference"? And how is this "contrary to the basic assumptions behind the Big Bang"?
"inferred observationally"? Isn't most of the Universe beyond our sight, with or without telescopes?
Which stars formed earlier? Aren't stars forming all the time? The only thing changing if "the stars" formed earlier is that the Big Bang was a few hundred million years before the earlier calculations, or something. Theories change all the time, ya know, when new finds are made; they don't scrap it all and turn to Cretinism if one tiny discrepancy is detected.
What mass is calculated from the creationist cosmology model? When was the stars formed according to these models? What ARE the models, btw? "Goddidit" is just an empty statement, not a model.
CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) actually poses problems for the big bang and supports creationist cosmologies.
So anything that questions even portions of parts of mainstream theories automatically supports (biblical) creationism?
Dr Hartnett showed that CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) actually poses problems for the big bang and supports creationist cosmologies.
Nope, 100% wrong. No place in the article does it state the Big Bang is incorrect nor does it show any support for creationist bullshit so no.
The problem is that you have no background in cosmology and do not understand the content.
Even if it disproved the Big Bang, (and it doesn't), that doesn't automatically mean it proved there's a god
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
