Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[chad kincham]

No, it was a reference to your confident but incorrect assertion that "the Big Bang violated the laws of thermodynamics that energy cannot be created". That indicates a lack of awareness that you don't understand what you're talking about.

I have no issues with alternative cosmological and physical theories, but persistent misrepresentation of existing physics and theories needs to be corrected.

Here’s a paper from Bligh on the issue of thermodynamics and the HBB theory.

I am capable of reading and interpreting science.

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5962.pdf

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here’s a paper from Bligh on the issue of thermodynamics and the HBB theory.

I am capable of reading and interpreting science.

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5962.pdf

Again, a fringe view - he's not a cosmologist, he works in cryogenics. His paper references static universe proponents, which is a big red flag - the expansion of the universe is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. It's certainly true that there are unexplained aspects of big bang theory, but the evidence for it is unequivocal.

His and earlier similar ideas have been examined and rejected by the mainstream (which has followed the evidence in dropping the static universe paradigm), although they have been enthusiastically accepted by the static universe fringe (i.e. the Alternative Cosmology Group).

A leading cosmologist, who takes a deep interest in fundamental physical theories, cosmology, and the nature of spacetime, and has written textbooks on subjects including General Relativity, has this to say about the Alternative Cosmology Group: Alternative Cosmologies

"It’s fun to go through the introductory paragraph of the Alternative Cosmology Group web site, searching for true statements. Fun, but not especially rewarding."​

 

[sjastro]

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [8] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

This is clearly a parroted response as it has no relevance in addressing my previous post.

In 1961 the measured Hubble constant was in a state of flux varying anywhere from 55 - 180 (km/s)/Mpc due the technological limitations of the time resulting in small sample sizes for redshift measurements of galaxies which impacted not only on the age the universe but the time taken for the universe to cool off.

The rate of expansion was also affected when the universe was radiation dominated in its early history followed by being matter dominated.
When Gamow took this into consideration by considering when the energy density of the radiation and dominated universes were equalized he came up with the predicted background temperature which is close to the measured temperature of 2.73K.

Strange how this is conveniently omitted when one tries to put down the theory.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How long do we have?

Because there is no shortcuts or short version, etc...

To what both was and still is an ongoing and growing and evolving/unfolding process/history/story thus far...

Do you know how many times I have already tried to share a lot of it on here???

It doesn't matter, never matters, etc...

And it has to be taken as a whole anyway, and no one has the patience at all anymore, etc...

God Bless!

It is your choice. I cannot make you give your reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is clearly a parroted response as it has no relevance in addressing my previous post.

It's a copy-paste from the Tom Van Flandern article he linked.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That’s not just the way it goes.

Flaming and goading via a round about method of saying I am incompetent, but not capable of realization of incompetence, is nevertheless a violation of forum rules.

It is not. It has been clear from your first "physics" post on this thread that you don't have a clue what your talking about. I merely point this out to any readers so they don't take your "physics" seriously. Other posts have demonstrated this lack of understanding more clearly.

Simple advice: Don't post science you don't understand as part of an argument. It will not make your case nor make you look good. If you sincerely want to engage in discussions it might help to start by asking questions rather than making claims about a particular science you don't know well. If your first post in this series had just been in the form of "Isn't it the case that..." instead of a bold (and incorrect) claim the response would have been quite different. There are people who are willing to engage with the curious regardless of your philosophical position on this board.

 

[tas8831]

delete

 

[chad kincham]

It is not. It has been clear from your first "physics" post on this thread that you don't have a clue what your talking about. I merely point this out to any readers so they don't take your "physics" seriously. Other posts have demonstrated this lack of understanding more clearly.

Simple advice: Don't post science you don't understand as part of an argument. It will not make your case nor make you look good. If you sincerely want to engage in discussions it might help to start by asking questions rather than making claims about a particular science you don't know well. If your first post in this series had just been in the form of "Isn't it the case that..." instead of a bold (and incorrect) claim the response would have been quite different. There are people who are willing to engage with the curious regardless of your philosophical
position on this board.

It doesn’t matter how wrong or stupid you think a post is, you are not allowed to say they are stupid , ignorant, or any other insulting term or pejorative, whether overtly or covertly by hiding it within a scientific term.

Forum rules make it clear you debate the topic, and don’t make it personal by attacking or insulting the poster.

Period.

 

[chad kincham]

It's almost as if you're claiming evolution is not science.

That’s because it’s not science - it’s metaphysics. It is not observable, testable, or repeatable, and is so plastic that it’s unfalsifiable, and that’s not just my opinion, it has been stated by some in the science community.

As a matter of fact some evolutionists admit natural selection and Darwinism is also a tautology, and that one has to accept it by faith, not by empirical evidence.

In my opinion it is a metaphysical philosophy of naturalism, materialism, and atheism, not science - so I go beyond it being a metaphysical tautology, but a philosophy of atheism, interpreting all data with a presupposition of naturalism.

One example is interpreting common structures, functions, and genes as proving common evolutionary ancestry, instead of equally proving a common creator who doesn’t reinvent the wheel for each creature created, but uses commonality of design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It doesn’t matter how wrong or stupid you think a post is, you are not allowed to say they are stupid , ignorant, or any other insulting term or pejorative, whether overtly or covertly by hiding it within a scientific term.

Period.

No one called you stupid, and calling someone ignorant of a subject is not necessarily an insult - it may be true. We're all ignorant of something.

But you're right, I shouldn't have used a 'scientific term', not in the science forums...

My point was that your assertive posts about science have been consistent with someone who doesn't know enough about the subject to know how wrong they are. They read like someone who has picked up most of their information about science from creationist websites. I just thought you ought to know.

 

[chad kincham]

That's not in disagreement with what I said, though. Those are miracles. I've experienced more than my share. But each miracle is unique and unpredictable--it's not something that can be repeatedly noted by observation or scientific experiment.

But then neither can the ToE or the BB theory.

 

[NxNW]

That’s because it’s not science

And yet I've watched a panel of Nobel winners pronounce Darwin's Theory of Evolution the greatest scientific achievement of all time.

It is not observable

And yet it has been observed in the lab and in nature.

testable,

It is testable because it make correct predictions about what fossils will be found, and where, and how old they will be. It makes genetic predictions as well, which confirm it.

or repeatable

Not a valid criticism for a forensic science, which tests past events.

and is so plastic that it’s unfalsifiable,

Find a fossil rabbit in the precambrian and you've falsified it.

One example is interpreting common structures, functions, and genes as proving common evolutionary ancestry,

There are no such examples, because no such claims are made. Theories are never proven, only disproved. So far nobody has disproved evolution.

instead of equally proving a common creator who doesn’t reinvent the wheel for each creature created, but uses commonality of design.

But new species are coming into existence, which disproves the creationist claim that all species were created at once.

 

[chad kincham]

No one called you stupid, and calling someone ignorant of a subject is not necessarily an insult - it may be true. We're all ignorant of something.

But you're right, I shouldn't have used a 'scientific term', not in the science forums...

My point was that your assertive posts about science have been consistent with someone who doesn't know enough about the subject to know how wrong they are. They read like someone who has picked up most of their information about science from creationist websites. I just thought you ought to know.

Except I posted secular sources and a peer reviewed article, stating that the BB violates the laws of thermodynamics - and for your information, there are those scientists who admit the creation of energy violates thermodynamics, but explain it away by stating that the laws of physics for the existing universe didn’t apply then, while the universe and space-time continuum was first forming and expanding.

And every alternative theoretical cosmological model also disagrees that the BB is viable, so you contradict yourself by claiming you have no problem with competing models, but yet become insulting when I state just one reason the BB is bogus.

That link I posted from an astronomer listed 30 reasons why the BB has been falsified, with footnotes to peer reviewed papers for each point, including the point that it violated thermodynamics - so it was not just my “unlearned, ignorant and incompetent” opinion culled from creationist websites as you asserted.

The whole theory is based around red shifting of light being a Doppler effect showing galaxies expanding, that was reverse extrapolated to a singularity, which is falsified by redshifts being quantized.

Also equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created, which would have annihilated each other leaving an empty universe - which also falsifies the theory - and there’s no viable explanation for a bias towards matter.

That’s just two of many.

Real science would have abandoned the BB theory already, not perpetuated it as if it was viable.

 

[chad kincham]

And yet I've watched a panel of Nobel winners pronounce Darwin's Theory of Evolution the greatest scientific achievement of all time.



And yet it has been observed in the lab and in nature.



It is testable because it make correct predictions about what fossils will be found, and where, and how old they will be. It makes genetic predictions as well, which confirm it.



Not a valid criticism for a forensic science, which tests past events.



Find a fossil rabbit in the precambrian and you've falsified it.



There are no such examples, because no such claims are made. Theories are never proven, only disproved. So far nobody has disproved evolution.

But new species are coming into existence, which disproves the creationist claim that all species were created at once.

Karl Popper (1902-1994) was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper's early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offera clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims.

Popper strongly supports the idea that a theory in science must be testable and, for the tests to be valid, they must be capable of falsifying the theory if it is not correct. It follows that a true scientific theory, in order to be tested, must be about a process that can be repeated and observed either directly or indirectly. One-time-only historical events may be true, but they are not part of science for there is no way of repeating them, observing them, and subjecting them to testing. Also, for a theory to be testable, it must be possible for those conducting the tests to use it in making predictions about the outcome of the tests. If a theory is not suitable for use by scientists to make specific predictions, it is not a scientific theory. Many scientists agree with Karl Popper on the testability requirement for a scientific theory because, without testing, there can be no unimpassioned selection among available alternatives.

A major reason that the theory of evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory seems to be that it is so plastic it can explain anything and everything.

Ernst Mayr made some startling admissions about Darwin's original model of mutation and natural selection. He said, "Popper is right; this model is so good that it can explain everything, as Popper has rightly complained." This relates to the requirement in science that a theory or model must make exclusionary predictions. If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions.

On the same subject, Dr. Fraser said, "It would seem to me that there have been endless statements made and the only thing I have clearly agreed with through the whole day has been the statement made by Karl Popper, namely, that the real inadequacy of evolution, esthetically and scientifically, is that you can explain anything you want by changing your variable around.

Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar calls Popper "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived."15 At a seminar held at Cambridge University to discuss Stephen Gould's ideas on evolution (April 30 - May 2, 1984), Medawar summed up the meeting with the observation that no theory, no matter how well-established, can be considered exempt from Popperian challenge.

Herman Bondi has stated, "There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said."18

Is Darwinism Testable Science?

According to the generally accepted requirements of a theory in science, could Charles Darwin's theory qualify as a truly scientific theory? Dr. Patterson did not think so. In his book, Evolution, he wrote, "If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."17

Of course, what Dr. Patterson calls "the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred" is the only question under consideration in an evaluation of the validity of the theories on origins. Is it true that all life evolved from a common ancestor or isn't it? He says that the theory that life evolved is "by definition, not part of science." The second part simply postulates a mechanism for evolution if it did occur--mutations and natural selection. No one denies that mutations occur or that natural selection acts as a preservative principle in nature, but since these concepts are not exclusive tenets of evolution theory, they do not help differentiate that theory from its competitor. The only question remaining to be resolved is whether random changes, with the best ones preserved, could create successively higher levels of complexity, resulting in the entire biosphere.

In his interview, Dr. Patterson said that he agreed with the statement that neither evolution nor creation qualified as a scientific theory since such theories could not be tested. He liked a quote from R.L. Wysong's book The Creation/Evolution Controversy that both ideas had to be accepted on faith. A quote of L.T. More's, corroborating Huxley's comments, was:

The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.18

Dr. Patterson said, in referring to this quotation, "I agree." In one of their audiovisual displays in 1980, the British Museum of Natural History included the statement that evolution was not a scientific theory in the sense that it could not be tested and refuted by experiment. This devastating characterization of evolution brought a flurry of criticism from the scientific establishment and the museum quickly removed it from the display. In any other circumstances the media would have raised the objection "censorship," but in this case they looked the other way.

What does Karl Popper say about evolution theory? In his autobiography Unended Quest he writes:

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme -- a possible framework for testable scientific theories. It suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.

This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.

Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is not so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation: it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory but metaphysical. But its value for science as a metaphysical research programme is very great, especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized and improved upon.19

Beverly Halstead, writing in New Scientist magazine, July 17, 1980, commented on Popper's position:

Despite these subtle distinctions, it is not difficult to envisage the enormous encouragement the Creationists take from assertions from the BM(NH) (British Museum display) that the theory of evolution is not scientific.20


Dr. Halstead told the author that his article drew so much attention to the museum display that it was removed from the museum, and that Popper felt compelled to make a public statement that would quiet the storm without reversing or negating his previous pronouncements about the requirements of a scientific theory. In the August 21, 1980, issue of New Scientist, Popper replied:


Some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

SOURCE: a free online book of interviews with evolutionists called Darwin’s Enigma, comprised of interviews with evolutionists:
Darwin's Enigma - Chap# 1

 

[NxNW]

But then neither can the ToE or the BB theory.

But they can be confirmed by making correct predictions about what we find in the future, which they do.

 

[chad kincham]

And yet I've watched a panel of Nobel winners pronounce Darwin's Theory of Evolution the greatest scientific achievement of all time.



And yet it has been observed in the lab and in nature.



It is testable because it make correct predictions about what fossils will be found, and where, and how old they will be. It makes genetic predictions as well, which confirm it.



Not a valid criticism for a forensic science, which tests past events.



Find a fossil rabbit in the precambrian and you've falsified it.



There are no such examples, because no such claims are made. Theories are never proven, only disproved. So far nobody has disproved evolution.



But new species are coming into existence, which disproves the creationist claim that all species were created at once.

Part two:

Part two:

These are reasonable statements. No one ever said that nothing in paleontology, the history of life on earth, literature, technology, or science, could be studied through empirical testing. Nor has anyone claimed that it was not possible to make testable predictions or retrodictions from postulated unique historical events.

For example, from the hypothesis that all life evolved from a common ancestor through an unbroken chain, it is possible to predict that paleontology would uncover evidence in the fossil record of a gradual progression from single cell to man. Likewise, from the hypothesis that life abruptly appeared on earth in complete functional form, it can be predicted that, without exception, the fossil record should show the first appearance of new organs and structures completely formed, and there should be no transitional forms connecting the major different types of organisms such as protozoa and metazoa, invertebrates and vertebrates, fishes and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, etc. These predictions can be tested scientifically -- and they have been, repeatedly. Interestingly, Gillespie indirectly admitted this when he wrote, "There were ways in which Darwin's theory could clearly have been falsified. He named some of them. The absence of transitional fossils, however, was not one of them."22 In other words, since Gillespie is a believer in Darwinism, he doesn't think it would be right to test the theory against the only direct scientific evidence, the fossil record, for he knows that evolution would flunk the test.

Professor Popper was careful not to contradict his previous clearly written statements that said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." Metaphysics is not science but rather something more closely associated with religion. His calling the activity "research" does not make it scientific for it is possible to research anything, even the most bizarre superstitions. With his generalization that "very often" testable predictions could be derived from unique events, he did not specifically say that evolution was a scientific theory.

Investigators can test some sub-theory predictions of a general theory, but this does not automatically establish the general theory as a completely testable concept. Similarly, the evolution sub-theory that populations change slightly can be tested, but this does not prove that the general theory of common-ancestry evolution is true.

Many other prominent scientists who are evolutionists admit that evolution theory is not really science. For instance, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, Dr. L. Harrison Matthews made the amazingly frank admission that evolution was faith, not science:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.23

Arthur Koestler wrote about the unscientific nature of Darwinism and said that the education system was not properly informing people about this:

In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection -- quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.24

In a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, prominent English evolutionist Dr. C.H. Waddington made some very pointed criticism of neo-Darwinism as being a vacuous tautology. In commenting on a paper by Murray Eden entitled, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," Dr. Waddington said:

I am a believer that some of the basic statements of neo-Darwinism are vacuous.... So the theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the changing of the population in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else. Nothing else is mentioned in the mathematical theory of neo-Darwinism. It is smuggled in and everybody has in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar vegetation, or something of this sort; but this is not explicit in the theory. All that is explicit in the theory is that they will leave more offspring.

There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

The whole real guts of evolution -- which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things -- is outside the mathematical theory.25

Norman Macbeth has written a book, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, in which he gave an especially perceptive critique of Darwinism. Noted philosopher of science Karl Popper reviewed this book and endorsed it, calling it "a really important contribution to the debate."26 In a 1982 interview, Macbeth had much to say about the major problems with evolution theory and about natural selection being a tautology:27

First, I think, is natural selection. When you ask all the different evolutionists to identify the real heart of evolution, they'll often give you three or four points -- adaption, the number of generations, mutations, and recombination. They've got a list of things that are supposed to be factors, but natural selection is on all lists and is obviously the dominant theory of all evolutionary discussion. With some people, it is the whole thing, so if you knock over natural selection, the whole structure crumbles.

Was natural selection the mechanism for evolution? He replied that it was, along with variation:

Variation is there but it does not accumulate, although they assert always that it does accumulate. Then you extrapolate it for another couple of hundred percent of the problem and you're in. Extrapolation is a terrible sin, so they've little foundation. The variation is there. You can see it, of course, in all the forms of dog we've bred, but accumulation and extrapolation are certainly used in a big way by evolutionists.

But isn't natural selection just a weeding out process? Macbeth explained:

A good evolutionist says it creates because everybody admits that something is weeding out. We are always culling, just as the ordinary operation of an animal's life culls out the really weak ones. A faithful Darwinist says it is creative. Here we have the opposition between evolutionist authors.... Michael Ruse says it can create anything ... largely by slow small changes accumulating. Gould, when you read him very carefully, does not discern that it creates new forms; it can mend and tinker, but it is not producing really big new things.

Gould says that it might tune things up a bit, right? Macbeth replied:

He doesn't go much further than that. This is why he confesses bankruptcy on the macro-evolution problem which Ruse will not confess. Ruse sees no problem at all in macro-evolution but Gould, with a much keener eye for the limitations of natural selection, says we haven't got anything to answer that. He pins his hope for the future on epigenesis which is pure hope.... They think the leap forward would have occurred in the embryological gestation period instead of among mature specimens. To some extent they are pursuing a pipe dream too, hoping to find serious evidence of it.

He told why he wrote that natural selection was an exercise in circular reasoning:

I argued it was a tautology in my book because it seemed to go round in a circle. It was, in effect, defining survival as due to fitness and fitness as due to survival. I also found people like Waddington saying it was a tautology. He said that at the Darwinian centennial in 1959 in Chicago. Nevertheless, he said it was a wonderful idea that explained everything. Professor Ronald H. Brady goes a little more deeply into it in his long articles in Systematic Zoology28and the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.29... I will not attempt to summarize Brady's view, but I think it destroys the idea of natural selection and this is certainly the opinion of many people at the American Museum of Natural History. It shoots to pieces the whole basis for the Synthetic Theory.... Few would challenge Brady, but not because they understand and approve.

 

[NxNW]

equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created, which would have annihilated each other leaving an empty universe - which also falsifies the theory - and there’s no viable explanation for a bias towards matter.

I guess you haven't read the explanation.

Real science would have abandoned the BB theory already, not perpetuated it as if it was viable.

You haven't posted any falsifications.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In fact Hindu physics professor Amit Goswami says that quantum physics proves that God is the only possible first observer at the Big Bang creation event, so that matter could come into existence from the energy that was created.

This isn't how the observer effect works in quantum mechanics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here’s a paper from Bligh on the issue of thermodynamics and the HBB theory.

I am capable of reading and interpreting science.

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5962.pdf

That isn't really much of a paper. The only real discussion of thermodynamics is a rather odd claim that professional cosmologists don't account for the ionization energy of hydrogen in their calculations. (With rather hyperbolic language about how big the number is, sigh.)

Apparently Mr. Bligh does not understand that the impact of the binding energy on the expansion of the universe is not impacted by whether the hydrogen is ionized or not as, due to energy conservation and mass-energy equivalence, the mass-energy density of the Universe is unaffected by the ionization state of the hydrogen.

(I should also note that the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" is no place to find serious science, only those suffering under the delusion that all of the "mainstream scientists" are the wrong ones and they are, somehow, the right ones.)

 

[sjastro]

Except I posted secular sources and a peer reviewed article, stating that the BB violates the laws of thermodynamics - and for your information, there are those scientists who admit the creation of energy violates thermodynamics, but explain it away by stating that the laws of physics for the existing universe didn’t apply then, while the universe and space-time continuum was first forming and expanding.

And every alternative theoretical cosmological model also disagrees that the BB is viable, so you contradict yourself by claiming you have no problem with competing models, but yet become insulting when I state just one reason the BB is bogus.

That link I posted from an astronomer listed 30 reasons why the BB has been falsified, with footnotes to peer reviewed papers for each point, including the point that it violated thermodynamics - so it was not just my “unlearned, ignorant and incompetent” opinion culled from creationist websites as you asserted.

The whole theory is based around red shifting of light being a Doppler effect showing galaxies expanding, that was reverse extrapolated to a singularity, which is falsified by redshifts being quantized.

Also equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created, which would have annihilated each other leaving an empty universe - which also falsifies the theory - and there’s no viable explanation for a bias towards matter.

That’s just two of many.

Real science would have abandoned the BB theory already, not perpetuated it as if it was viable.

You become upset when individuals refer to you as being ignorant yet it’s painfully obvious you are clueless by blindly quoting nonsense such as “red shift being a Doppler effect showing galaxies expanding, that was reverse extrapolated to a singularity, which is falsified by redshifts being quantized”.
Cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect as the recession velocity is a function of distance, furthermore redshifts being quantized were refuted by observations decades ago.
Given your motivation is to support your confirmation bias it really doesn’t matter whether your sources are accurate or not provided they give a narrative to support your bias.
I have pointed out that Gamow eventually came up with estimates of the background temperature that were within 0.3K of the actual temperature which your source conveniently omitted.
So much for the accuracy of that source…..

With regards to your link, if you think this is a peer reviewed article I doubt Mickey Mouse would even peer review such a worthless piece of junk.
Some of the comments made are straight out wrong.
Here are a couple of examples.

To put this into scientific terminology, the equations relating to general relativity do not contain any reference to physical properties such as density.

The matter energy tensor Tⁿⁱ in the equations explicitly uses density which is not terribly surprising given general relativity is a theory for gravity!!!!!

Or this.

The theoreticians then make a jump in logic and state that the early universe must have been a uniform hot plasma, and that its expansion would have brought about cooling, though this reasoning is contrary to well established experimental physical chemistry and thermodynamics.

The reason why stars and galaxies formed in the first place the plasma was not “uniformly hot”; the very slight temperature differences led to density variations which ultimately led to the formation of these structures.

Evidently the author doesn’t understand the thermodynamic concepts of an isolated system and adiabatic expansion.
The universe is an example of an isolated thermodynamic system where there is no exchange of energy or matter as there is no “outside” to exchange with.
In this case as the universe expands it undergoes adiabatic cooling where work not heat is transferred to the surroundings and shows why 19th century thermodynamics can be used to understand why the universe cools rather than the thermodynamics being violated.