Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Predications based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of the known, observable universe. Nor can this theory explain the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding galaxies, the abundance of helium, and why the movement of galaxies appears to be speeding up, and so on.
To bridge the fatal discrepancies between observation and theory, and to account for acceleration, the greater than predicted gravitational influences, the missing 80% of the universe, and so on, the acolytes of this religion invent multiple universes, alternate realities, and hypothetical, invisible, undetectable substances(their god), and supernatural constructs such as "inflation," "dark energy" and "dark matter." And yet, although proposed as a patchwork fix, to paper over the increasing number of holes in this theory, these constructs actually refute the big bang and support instead the theory of the eternal, infinite universe.
Inflation, for example, requires a density at least 20 times larger than that predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. That density, like the missing matter, excessive gravity, expansion, the clumping of galaxies, the age of distant stars, etc., can be accounted for not by a big bang, but a infinite universe.
Not a single quantitative prediction made by the big bang theory has been validated by observation. Instead, the proponents of this religion engage in what is little more than card tricks and "slight of hand," where instead of dealing from the bottom of the deck, they insert and slip in new theoretical constructs and an increasing array of layer after layer of flexible fluctuating parameters that can be adjusted retrospectively willy nilly and after the fact to explain away discrepant observations and to support a failed theory.
To bridge the fatal discrepancies between observation and theory, and to account for acceleration, the greater than predicted gravitational influences, the missing 80% of the universe, and so on, the acolytes of this religion invent multiple universes, alternate realities, and hypothetical, invisible, undetectable substances(their god), and supernatural constructs such as "inflation," "dark energy" and "dark matter." And yet, although proposed as a patchwork fix, to paper over the increasing number of holes in this theory, these constructs actually refute the big bang and support instead the theory of the eternal, infinite universe.
Inflation, for example, requires a density at least 20 times larger than that predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. That density, like the missing matter, excessive gravity, expansion, the clumping of galaxies, the age of distant stars, etc., can be accounted for not by a big bang, but a infinite universe.
Not a single quantitative prediction made by the big bang theory has been validated by observation. Instead, the proponents of this religion engage in what is little more than card tricks and "slight of hand," where instead of dealing from the bottom of the deck, they insert and slip in new theoretical constructs and an increasing array of layer after layer of flexible fluctuating parameters that can be adjusted retrospectively willy nilly and after the fact to explain away discrepant observations and to support a failed theory.
Hard to provide links when you are making stuff up as you go along.
Could you try and make at least 1 post with all its sentences in coherent English?
Also why not learn to read properly instead if fantasizing at everything. I don't state anywhere I am correct, I do describe how you are wrong.
The standard BB model includes a singularity where t=0. Look it up . It's out there. Whether the science is eventually proved to be correct or not is a separate issue. I have not stated whether I think it is or not. The fact is, the standard BB cosmological model includes t=0 at singularity.
After that you don't really need any link to realize there cannot be zero time when time has started as per your ridiculous suggestion. Would you like to provide a link for that senseless contradiction and if so, what on earth would be the purpose other than to show you are not alone but in a group of loonies.
Why not ask whomsoever is working your computer for you to type Gravitational Singularity into Google and see if you can find the standard BB model where t=0.
It's there somewhere and you will also find plenty of creationists links which will apply any kind of makebelieve , employing all sorts of their own pseudo-science to say it's all wrong, or the singularity/BB isn't science and Goddidit really. Which should keep you happy.
But all you need do anyway is link yourself to a little rationality. Fat chance of that.
For all this side talk about Big Bangs your problem still remains. Science demonstrates how something does come from nothing, and in my opinion that certainly puts religion into a recession and makes your creator God jobless - at least in that regard.
You did?
So repeating the same â does lend support â ? Or ... â In fact it is more dubious â ?
Which is it?
I would appreciate it even more if typing slowly enabled you to be logically consistent. But it obviously doesn't.
Can you not read what you write?
I should remind myself, it took 4 or maybe 5 repeat attempts before I was able to teach you to stop spelling the word cite as site. You say you were a lawyer. yeah right, well at least Iâm not surprised about the past tense.
You know, my dog is quicker on the uptake than you are . He only takes one or two repeats at the most. Obviously you need lots more.
I'm not doing it all for you. so once again....
The link is Google. A suggested search is Gravitational Singularity. Then look for standard Big Bang Model where time = 0 or t=0.. Itâs all there.
If you can take a pee without help you should be able to do that much for yourself .
There is NO WAY anyone can be this dumb. Not even you jem.... what am I saying... sure you can.