cosmic background radiation

[sandwiches]

Exactly what part of "Big Goof" don't you understand?

So, you're lost, is what you're saying. Gotcha.

 

[lucaspa]

If I had no logic, no logical argument, no scientific evidence, and no peer-reviewed citations, I would say the exact same thing.

You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what the evidence is, you would say the same thing.

Do you realize what you just admitted to? That what you say isn't dictated by reason, logical argument, or evidence, but simply by what you want to believe. That makes all your "logic, logical argument, scientific evidence, and peer-reviewed citations" simply rationalizations.

It does, however, explain why so many of your citations do not say what you claim they do.

 

[lucaspa]

I am saying that the Big Bang is a myth anyway you look at it.

And here come the insufficiently cited quotations taken from context.

"The chance that the [Big Bang] theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion." -- Eric J. Lerner, physicist, 1991

That you would use Lerner is so funny. Lerner believes the Big Bang is a theist conspiracy. He doesn't like the BB not because of the evidence, but because he is afraid it proves the existence of God and negates atheism. I suspect you got this quote from his book The Big Bang Never Happened even tho you don't give that as the citation.

What this does is show that what you said, AoS, is correct. You would state what you stated no matter what. You state the BB is a myth solely because that is what you want to state. So you will warp and misuse anything else to "demonstrate" that.

You aren't looking for truth, AoS, you are rationalizing.

 

[lucaspa]

What is my assertion? The paper is my assertion so how can it not support itself?

No, your assertion is that the Big Bang is a myth and that the CMBR is not from the Big Bang.

The paper by Vershuur says that the CMBR is indeed from the Big Bang. The paper says the variations in the CMBR are from neutral hydrogen clouds, not initial variations in the CMBR.

The websites you cited also gave refutations of Vershur's work! IOW, they showed your assertion to be wrong. That's another way the websites cannot support your assertion.

 

[Michael]

That you would use Lerner is so funny. Lerner believes the Big Bang is a theist conspiracy. He doesn't like the BB not because of the evidence, but because he is afraid it proves the existence of God and negates atheism. I suspect you got this quote from his book The Big Bang Never Happened even tho you don't give that as the citation.

FYI, I don't really know anything about Learner and his theist/atheistic tendencies, but a BB does not necessarily "prove" the existence of God, and a lack of a BB certainly does not disprove the existence of God. The correlation is arbitrary IMO. I lack belief in a BB, but I do not lack belief in God.

God is not now, nor has God ever been dependent upon inflation, dark energies and exotic matter IMO.

And FYI, Learner isn't the only BB critic. I'm sure many folks on this list are theists.....

cosmologystatement.org

 

[lucaspa]

FYI, I don't really know anything about Learner and his theist/atheistic tendencies, but a BB does not necessarily "prove" the existence of God, and a lack of a BB certainly does not disprove the existence of God. The correlation is arbitrary IMO.

I tend to agree. Lerner does not. He is obsessed, from an atheist view point, that BB is a conspiracy to "prove" the existence of God. That's why it is so funny that AoS quotes Lerner to back his belief that the BB never happened.

On the other side are some creationists, particularly Hugh Ross at www.reasons.org, who state that BB "proves" the existence of God and only atheists would object to it. Ross would consider you a closet atheist.

The correlation is not completely arbitrary, however. Christian theology is adamant that the universe had a beginning: God created it. So at some point, there was no universe. BB provides a beginning to the universe. It does not state that the cause of this beginning was God.

Up until BB the accepted scientific theory was Steady State. This correlated more with Aristotle's atheistic belief that the universe always existed. That negates creation. Hawking in A Brief History of Time does go into the theological implications of BB, and the contrary theological implications of his No Boundary Proposal.

God is not now, nor has God ever been dependent upon inflation, dark energies and exotic matter IMO.

God is not dependent upon them; BB simply is the method by which God created. Inflation is a part of BB. Dark energy and exotic matter are just part of God's Creation.

And FYI, Learner isn't the only BB critic. I'm sure many folks on this list are theists.....

cosmologystatement.org

Creationists, particularly YEC, object to BB, but they do so because they are Biblical literalists/creationists who want God to have created some other way. There is a small group of scientists who promote "plasma theory" who refuse to accept BB.

BTW, your link didn't work.