How can Christians say this?

The only really good way to claim that the universe began is to have been there; none of us is really that old.

The so-called "big bang" idea has pretty much been disproven at this point. There is the question of high and low redshift objects being shown to be part and parcel of the same things, which kills off the idea of interpreting redshift as velocity or distance, and there is the purely philosophical question of having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point (prior to a "big bang"). That would be the ultimate black hole and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that.

There is also a philosophical problem with claiming that an eternal and omnipotent/omniscient God created the universe at any finite point in time. If God decided that was a cool thing to do 17 billion years ago for instance (as some of the big-bangers claim), then why wasn't he able to figure out that would be a cool thing to do 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago?

The basic reality is that the universe could in fact be eternal.

Actually the big bang is now determined to be 13.7 million years ago.

The big bang is a fiarytale for adults.

A group of some of the world's best physicists recently sent a letter to the editors of Nature Magazine which refused to publish it, and the letter was afterwards published in New Scientist. Amongst the people who signed the letter are leading plasma physicists from Los Alamos:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

If you want to sign this statement , please click here

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................................... 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

New signers of the Open letter since publication

Scientists and Engineers
Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK ................................................................. 40
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey .................................. 50
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA ............................................................ 60
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
Thomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Italy
Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA .............................................................. 70
S.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Tibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA ............................. 80
Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, UFSC, Brazil
Cristian R. Ghezzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Daniel Nicolato Epitácio Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gregory M. Salyards, US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.), USA
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, USA
Luiz Carlos Jafelice, Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Michael Sosteric, Athabasca University, Canada
Steven Langley Guy, University of Elizabeth (Physics Department), Australia
Robert Fritzius, Shade Tree Physics, USA
Irineu Gomes Varella, Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ............................................... 90
Luiz Carlos Barbosa, Unicamp, Brazil
Mauro Cosentino, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Moacir Lacerda, Univeersidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Roberto Assumpcao, PUC Minas, Brazil
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ronaldo Junio Camppos Batista, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ermenegildo Caccese, University of Basilicata, Italy
Felipe Sofia Zanuzzo, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
Edival de Morais, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Brazil
Graham Coupe, KAZ Technology Services, Australia ....................................................... 100
Richard Wayte, independent researcher, UK
Tom Walther, Southern Cross University Australia , Australia
Antonio Cleiton, Laboratório de Sistemas Complexos - UFPI, Brazil
Sergey Karpov, L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Wagner Patrick Junqueira de Souza Coelho Nicácio, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Sokolov Vladimir, Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS, Russia
Edwin G. Schasteen, TAP-TEN Research Foundation International, USA
Gerry Zeitlin, openseti.org, USA
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA
Yasha Fard,H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada .................................................................. 110
Gordon Petrie, High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, USA,
Jose B. Almeida, University of Minho, Portugal,
G.Srinivasan, Independent_Researcher, India,
David Blackford, Independent_Researcher, UK
Henry Reynolds, UC Santa Cruz, USA,
Alberto Bolognesi, Independent Researcher, Italy
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jouko Seppänen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland,
Dr. Robert Bennett, Kolbe Center, USA,
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa ....................................... 120
Roberto Caimmi, Astronomy Department, Padua University, Italy
Tobias Keller, ETH (SFIT) Zurich, Earth Sciences, Switzerland,
Deborah Foch, Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, USA,
Cristiane Ribeiro Bernardes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Eric Blievernicht. TRW, USA
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
DEAN L MAMAS, Independent Researcher, USA
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Gerardus D. Bouw, Baldwin-Wallace College, USA
Harold E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA. .......................................... 130
Nainan. K. Varghese, Independent Researcher, India,
Andrew Kulikovsky, Independent Researcher, Australia
Alan Rees, Independent Researcher, Sweden
Wieslaw Sztumski, Silesian University, Poland
Lars Wåhlin,Colutron Research Corporation,USA
Udayan Chakravarty, Independent Researcher, India
Georg Gane, Independent Researcher, Germany
Robin Whittle, Independent Researcher, Australi,
Riccardo Scarpa, European Southern Observatory, Italy,
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France .................................................. 140
Joseph Garcia, International Radiation Protection, Germany,
Josef Lutz, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany,
Nigel Edwards, Independent Researcher, Australia
Hermann Dürkop, Nabla Systemberatung, Germany,
Klaus Fischer, Universität Trier, Germany,
Dieter Schumacher, Independent Researcher, Germany
Rudolf Kiesslinger, Independent Researcher, Germany
Werner Holzmüller, University Leipzig, Germany
Gerd Schulte, Independent Researcher, Germany
Stuart Eves, Independent Researcher, UK .................................................................... 150
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany
Richard Gancarczyk, University of Nottingham, UK
Steve Humphry, Murdoch University, Australia
Alberto Bolognesi, Università di Perugia, Italy
Aaron Hill, Independent Researcher, USA,
Daniele Carosati, Armenzano Observatory, Italy
Brendan Dean, H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada
W. Jim Jastrzebski, Warsaw University, Poland
Hans-Dieter Radecke, Independent Researcher, Germany ..............................................
160
Gero Rupprecht, European Southern Observatory, Germany
Rainer Herrmann TEWS-Elektronik Germany
Mawell P Davis Independent Researcher New Zealand
Felix Pharand University of Montreal Canada
Gordon E. Mackay Independent Researcher USA
Jerry Bergman Northwest State University USA
Tibor Gasparik SUNY at Stony Brook USA
Rei Gunn University of Nantucket USA
Jan Mugele Independent Researcher Germany
Jorge Ales Corona Independent Researcher Spain ....................................................... 170
Dave Sagar Independent Researcher USA
Benjamin I. Iglesias Independent Researcher Spain
Alper Kozan Independent Researcher Turkey
Sinan Alis Eyuboglu Twin Observatories Turkey
Esat Rennan Pekünlü University of EGE Turkey
Andrew Rigg Independent Researcher Australia
Anne M. Hofmeister Washington U. USA
Thomas Riedel Independent researcher Denmark
Quentin Foreman IEEE New Zealand
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada ............................................................... 180
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada
Y. P. Varshni University of Ottawa Canada
Helen Workman Independent researcher Canada
Bob Criss Washington University USA
Richard Tobey Independent researcher USA
Steve McMahon Independent researcher USA ............................................................ 186

Other Signers
Charles Weber,USA
David Gershon ,USA
Peter G Smith ,USA
Richard J. Lawrence ,USA
Naszvadi László, Hungary
Roger W. Browne, USA
Bart Clauwens, Netherlands
Noah Feiler-Poethke, USA
Jonathan Hardy, UK
John S. Kundrat, USA ........................................................................... 10
Vincent Sauve, USA
Chris Somers, Australia
Jagroop Sahota, USA
Edgar Raab, Germany
Gordon Hogenson, USA
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Robert Angstrom, USA .............................................................................. 20
Norman Chadwick, USA
Harley Orr, USA
Clive Martin-Ross, UK
Alasdair Martin, UK
Marcus Ellspermann, Germany
Bruce Richardson, USA
John Dill, USA
Judith Woollard Australia
Michael Cyrek USA
Randall Meyers ITALY ............................................................................................... 30
Craig Arend USA
Onur Cantimur Turkey
Roland Scheel France
Murat Isik Turkey
Markus Hellebrandt Germany
Mehmet Kara Turkey
Abhishek Dey Das India
D. N. Vazquez USA
Suzan R. Rodenburg USA
Shuming Zhang China ................................................................................................. 40
Codie Vickers USA
Richard Tobey USA .................................................................................................. 42

fiary tale eh? No kidding...

pffff. I think that's the pot calling the kettle black mister "I believe in some magical sky pixie who created the earth and sacrificed his son for us".

Fiarytales indeed.

In the words of Albert Einstein (responding to the book 100 scientists against Einstein)....

"If they were right, they would have only needed one."
-Albert Einstein.

Look, there's a link in here which allows anyone to sign the list, even me

And the statement is basically a push for equal funding for "alternative" explanations to the BB. So if I have some crackpot theory and I want money to look into it, it benefits me to sign the list. Cool.

You must be very careful with science.

There are always conflicting theories. Why, I learnt about conflicting theories about prion diseases such as BSE. One lab's findings state that prion proteins are not the cause of the disease, whilst another lab says it is. Both labs are fierce rivals and will always take any opportunity they can to disprove the other.

In science, there will always be conflicting accounts, because not everything is absolute. What we discover is what we observe, but we are only human and what we see may not be the entire picture. Hence science will always come out with differing answers, hence the need for repitition.

I'm not sure about physics, but in the biological sciences, experiments that can be repeated more than once without error usually point to the truth.

Evolution, for example, is right because it can be experimentally proved in the lab with bacteria. (granted this only proves true for microevolution, but seeing as the mechanisms for macroevolution are exactly the same, we can infer from the results of such studies that macroevolution is true too). It does not explain everything, but then again, very few things in science actually do.

Take example our understanding of Gravity. We have few scientific laws for it, only theories and theories are those which have scientifically sound evidence proving that it more correct than its null hypothesis (a statement that says the complete opposite). Does that mean gravity doesn't exist? No, of course not.

Likewise with religions, there are multiple religions out there. They all differ in some aspects, but agree on others. Why is that? Is it because there is one singular God or is it because that all Gods think alike? Or is it because all gods are figments of human imagination, born from the human mind and that all humans have the same needs and desires?

What is the cause and what is the effect?

I doubt any living being can realistically separate the two with absolute certainty, unless you're a god... if such a thing exists and is not the product of a fertile human mind that is unreliable enough to make the initial mistake of saying the sun revolves around the earth (a mistake that was actually rectified through more careful observation).

That's dead wrong, and Gould, Eldredge and all the rest wouldn't have gone to the trouble to formulate "punctuated equilibria" if that were true.

How can you say that evolution is impossible? How can you explain the viruses and bacteria that cause disease today to change and become immune to medicines and vaccines? That's what evolution is!

Stephan Hawkins



Sorry, but someone had to do this. lol

http://www.ecarter.k12.mo.us/dept/sports/jhmain.html

You might want to check out some of the names which actually were signed to that letter; they include some of America's top plasma physicists including a couple of the guys who run Los Alamos and make hydrogen bombs for a living.

You wouldn't want to get into any sort of a neighborhood nuclear superiority thing with any of those guys ala "Elephant Parts"; you'd lose.

That's called MICROEVOLUTION, which nobody disputes. The thing which people dispute is MACROEVOLUTION, which means the generation of new KINDS of animals. That's the thing which the theory of evolution is actually about and which has been shown to be impossible.

I see...

Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority:

http://www.videoranch.com/html/NNSlarge.html

Ok, what the hell did that have to do with anything.

Comment above:



It occured to me some might not know what I was talking about wrt NNS.

I see.

I don't delve into science much, I prefer philosophy. But, I seem to remember that science relies on evidence which can be observed. This would seem to make it somewhat insufficient for proving or disproving the existence of God. If God chooses to reveal himself in a limited way, how could we observe him(it). Are our powers of observation greater than Gods power. Or put another way, if God designed us with limited abilities, it is not reasonable to think that we have exceeded those abilities and are now capable of observing or comprehending evidence that he does not wish us to.

Also Gunga's post pointed out that there is resistance to funding research that may be counter to the big bang theory. This sounds very similar to the evolutionist who do not want the holes in their theory to be explored. If science is to be respected, it should not predetermine the results of experiments. It should not rule out possibilities without conclusive evidence. If you don't believe these things are happening, just consider the tone of antibuddha's post.

Just some observations.