Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ron Paul

2007-08-13T20:54:32Z

Warhawk: /* Running against Paul */

I removed the following link:
*[http://chip91.wordpress.com/ Conservatives against Ron Paul]
I don't think a blog that criticizes a [[libertarian]] because he's not a [[conservative]] is a very relevant source for an encyclopedia article. If you absolutely think it's necessary, at least place it ''after'' the official Ron Paul sites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Running against Paul ==

How can Dondero be running against Paul for Congress, if Paul is running not for Congress but for President? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 17:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:Err? I did some research about it. I couldn't really find much about it, but I did find [http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/05/16/eric-dondero-to-run-against-ron-paul-for-congress/ this]. As far as I can tell, he's going to run against Paul in D14 if Paul drops out of the primary race and runs for Congress again? That's as good a guess as I can figure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::He's running for both president and congress. Many politicians do so. It's not a conflict because the presidential election process tends to give you a pretty good idea pretty early on if you're going to get your party's nomination, and as such would still have several months to organize your congressional campaign if your presidential campaign falls through. And he has done a little campaigning in Texas, if I'm not mistaken. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 10:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
::Thank you! That's what I figured, but he obviously is only talking about the Presidential race right now. Thanks for clarifying it for us. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 10:58, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Conservatives against Ron Paul link==
On the [[Mitt Romney]] article there is a "conservatives against Romney link." So why can't there be a conservatives against Ron Paul link here? {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:See above for why I removed it. There is nothing wrong with links of conservatives who are against Ron Paul, though I will reiterate that the specific site you chose isn't a great one. (Thanks for putting it below the official links though). That site's main concern with Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative; but he never pretends to be a conservative. That would be like me placing a site on [[Barack Obama]]'s page complaining that he's not a conservative. I left the link up anyway, but I wouldn't mind keeping it only as a placeholder until we find a better one. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:Oh man I just took another look at the site. What I thought was the first page of posts was in fact the only page of posts. And if the name gives us a clue, it's your own site, Chippeterson. I now think there's no reason to keep this on an encyclopedia article. Feel free to find a more established blog, or better yet a news source or something to that effect. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

If somebody really wanted to post something against Ron Paul, they could post this. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul] I'm not saying I agree with all this; I disagree with this author's opinion on an Iraq pullout, but this would be more "legitimate". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to go on record as supporting the removal of the aforementioned blog. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It's much more then just one page. On top of the blog you find pages about Ron Paul's voting record and how it differs from what he says his political views are. It should have stayed on and I would put it back up if I thought it wouldn't result in me be being blocked from writing here on conservapedia. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Ah you are correct, I didn't see those tabs at the top. Still, there are only 6 posts to the blog (it is correct to say it's your personal blog, right?). It's not the content that makes me feel this is an unacceptable source, but the authority. The blog's only two days old and it has 0 comments. It also has no credited author. I'm sure you would like your blog to be on here, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. (Also, it doesn't bother me, but some people around here get miffed if you don't sign your post. You can do this by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:55, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ron Paul

2007-08-13T20:54:07Z

Warhawk: /* Running against Paul */

I removed the following link:
*[http://chip91.wordpress.com/ Conservatives against Ron Paul]
I don't think a blog that criticizes a [[libertarian]] because he's not a [[conservative]] is a very relevant source for an encyclopedia article. If you absolutely think it's necessary, at least place it ''after'' the official Ron Paul sites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Running against Paul ==

How can Dondero be running against Paul for Congress, if Paul is running not for Congress but for President? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 17:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:Err? I did some research about it. I couldn't really find much about it, but I did find [http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/05/16/eric-dondero-to-run-against-ron-paul-for-congress/ this]. As far as I can tell, he's going to run against Paul in D14 if Paul drops out of the primary race and runs for Congress again? That's as good a guess as I can figure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::He's running for both president and congress. Many politicians do so. It's not a conflict because the presidential election process tends to give you a pretty good idea pretty early on if you're going to get your party's nomination, and as such would still have several months to organize your congressional campaign if your presidential campaign falls through. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 10:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
::Thank you! That's what I figured, but he obviously is only talking about the Presidential race right now. Thanks for clarifying it for us. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 10:58, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Conservatives against Ron Paul link==
On the [[Mitt Romney]] article there is a "conservatives against Romney link." So why can't there be a conservatives against Ron Paul link here? {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:See above for why I removed it. There is nothing wrong with links of conservatives who are against Ron Paul, though I will reiterate that the specific site you chose isn't a great one. (Thanks for putting it below the official links though). That site's main concern with Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative; but he never pretends to be a conservative. That would be like me placing a site on [[Barack Obama]]'s page complaining that he's not a conservative. I left the link up anyway, but I wouldn't mind keeping it only as a placeholder until we find a better one. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:Oh man I just took another look at the site. What I thought was the first page of posts was in fact the only page of posts. And if the name gives us a clue, it's your own site, Chippeterson. I now think there's no reason to keep this on an encyclopedia article. Feel free to find a more established blog, or better yet a news source or something to that effect. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

If somebody really wanted to post something against Ron Paul, they could post this. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul] I'm not saying I agree with all this; I disagree with this author's opinion on an Iraq pullout, but this would be more "legitimate". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to go on record as supporting the removal of the aforementioned blog. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It's much more then just one page. On top of the blog you find pages about Ron Paul's voting record and how it differs from what he says his political views are. It should have stayed on and I would put it back up if I thought it wouldn't result in me be being blocked from writing here on conservapedia. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Ah you are correct, I didn't see those tabs at the top. Still, there are only 6 posts to the blog (it is correct to say it's your personal blog, right?). It's not the content that makes me feel this is an unacceptable source, but the authority. The blog's only two days old and it has 0 comments. It also has no credited author. I'm sure you would like your blog to be on here, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. (Also, it doesn't bother me, but some people around here get miffed if you don't sign your post. You can do this by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:55, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ron Paul

2007-08-13T14:53:42Z

Warhawk: /* Running against Paul */

I removed the following link:
*[http://chip91.wordpress.com/ Conservatives against Ron Paul]
I don't think a blog that criticizes a [[libertarian]] because he's not a [[conservative]] is a very relevant source for an encyclopedia article. If you absolutely think it's necessary, at least place it ''after'' the official Ron Paul sites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Running against Paul ==

How can Dondero be running against Paul for Congress, if Paul is running not for Congress but for President? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 17:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:Err? I did some research about it. I couldn't really find much about it, but I did find [http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/05/16/eric-dondero-to-run-against-ron-paul-for-congress/ this]. As far as I can tell, he's going to run against Paul in D14 if Paul drops out of the primary race and runs for Congress again? That's as good a guess as I can figure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::He's running for both president and congress. Many politicians do so. It's not a conflict because the presidential election process involves primaries, which means that you've got a pretty good idea pretty early on if you're going to get your party's nomination, and as such would still have several months to organize your congressional campaign if your presidential campaign falls through. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 10:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Conservatives against Ron Paul link==
On the [[Mitt Romney]] article there is a "conservatives against Romney link." So why can't there be a conservatives against Ron Paul link here? {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:See above for why I removed it. There is nothing wrong with links of conservatives who are against Ron Paul, though I will reiterate that the specific site you chose isn't a great one. (Thanks for putting it below the official links though). That site's main concern with Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative; but he never pretends to be a conservative. That would be like me placing a site on [[Barack Obama]]'s page complaining that he's not a conservative. I left the link up anyway, but I wouldn't mind keeping it only as a placeholder until we find a better one. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:Oh man I just took another look at the site. What I thought was the first page of posts was in fact the only page of posts. And if the name gives us a clue, it's your own site, Chippeterson. I now think there's no reason to keep this on an encyclopedia article. Feel free to find a more established blog, or better yet a news source or something to that effect. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

If somebody really wanted to post something against Ron Paul, they could post this. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul] I'm not saying I agree with all this; I disagree with this author's opinion on an Iraq pullout, but this would be more "legitimate". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to go on record as supporting the removal of the aforementioned blog. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It's much more then just one page. On top of the blog you find pages about Ron Paul's voting record and how it differs from what he says his political views are. It should have stayed on and I would put it back up if I thought it wouldn't result in me be being blocked from writing here on conservapedia. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Ah you are correct, I didn't see those tabs at the top. Still, there are only 6 posts to the blog (it is correct to say it's your personal blog, right?). It's not the content that makes me feel this is an unacceptable source, but the authority. The blog's only two days old and it has 0 comments. It also has no credited author. I'm sure you would like your blog to be on here, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. (Also, it doesn't bother me, but some people around here get miffed if you don't sign your post. You can do this by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:55, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-04-27T18:45:47Z

Warhawk: Realized it was already included later in the article

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the creation of the Universe. It models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Supporters of the Big bang theory state that observations of distant supernovae and active galactic nuclei (AGN) indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and that galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Big Bang theory

2007-04-27T18:43:35Z

Warhawk:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the creation of the Universe. It models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). On November 18, 1989, the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite was launched to map the variations in the microwave background radiation<ref>[http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/]</ref>. On June 30. 2001, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite was launched, which could map the microwave background radiation in even greater detail<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/]</ref>.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Supporters of the Big bang theory state that observations of distant supernovae and active galactic nuclei (AGN) indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and that galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Big Bang theory

2007-04-27T18:42:36Z

Warhawk:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the creation of the Universe. It models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). On November 18, 1989, the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite was launched to map the variations in the microwave background radiation[http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/]. On June 30. 2001, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite was launched, which could map the microwave background radiation in even greater detail[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/].

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Supporters of the Big bang theory state that observations of distant supernovae and active galactic nuclei (AGN) indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and that galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref>

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-23T18:07:13Z

Warhawk: /* Article split */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?