74
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + + + +
→Dominant theory
Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.
Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.
==Evolution and the Big Bang Theory==
You guys state: "Some creationists argue that the Big Bang theory is part of an effort to deny God's creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,[12] have claimed that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the theory of evolution, particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by atheist evolutionists to silence creationist opponents."
Sigh...I could be wrong, but wasn't the earth known to be billions of years old by then? And the view back then was that the Universe is <b>static</b> and that it had been around forever. Einstein actually inserted <math> \Lambda g^{ \mu \nu} </math> into the left hand side of his equation <math> \mathbf{G}= 8\pi \mathbf{T} </math> (geometrized units) so that he would get a static universe! So the big bang model proposes that the Universe is <b>younger</b> than previously thought, not older! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
== Dominant theory ==
== Dominant theory ==