27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 144:
Line 144: +
no edit summary
:::::: The theory might do "remarkably well" at explaining some things, but overall it doesn't do that well, and I seem to recall that the anisotropies of the CMB is one that it ''doesn't'' do well, as the observed variations are not as great as predicted by the theory. In fact even many secular scientists reject or have doubts about the Big Bang. See [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ here].
:::::: The theory might do "remarkably well" at explaining some things, but overall it doesn't do that well, and I seem to recall that the anisotropies of the CMB is one that it ''doesn't'' do well, as the observed variations are not as great as predicted by the theory. In fact even many secular scientists reject or have doubts about the Big Bang. See [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ here].
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, the Big Bang theory predicts the anisotropy patterns essentially perfectly. I'm an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from MIT by the way, so by your appeal to authority approach, you should believe me. But don't take my word for it -- compare the numerical predicitions of the theory to the data obtained with the COBE or WMAP satellites and see for yourself. As for the Bible being an authority, I dispute that claim because it conflicts with observations. Simple light travel time arguments rule out a young Universe. The Andromeda Galaxy is some 700 million light years away. Nowadays, any Joe with a telescope and digital camera can confirm that for himself in his own backyard. If we can see something 700 million light years away, then the light has taken 700 million years to reach us. It's a simple argument; v = d / t.--[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 06:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==
== Young earth creationist view ==