Failing Paradigm Questions Basic Law And More

The big bang ‘theory’ presents a sequence of events which is totally incompatible with the Bible and not only that, but it has progressed to be incompatible with current observations in space than ever before. For example, the big bang makes no predictions about lumps rather it predicts a uniform explosion. Using some invented explanations, they try to get by but now it’s getting harder, scientists are discovering there are even more lumps in distant space. Something that caught astronomers way off guard because the observation was not able to meet the prediction of their ‘theory’ once again. What are lumps and where do they come from?

What has been observed in space are lumpy aggregates of matter like galaxies and clusters of galaxies with near vacuums of empty space between them, this is what they call lumpiness in space. When tiny differences in temperature measured in the cosmic background radiation was detected. fudge factors were added like dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

When these new observations came up recently it did not cast doubt on whether or not the big bang is a completely falsified ‘theory’ for those who firmly believe in it rather it began to question the fudge factors which were inserted to rescue it to keep it going and now only that but call into question one of the most basic laws, gravity itself.

Wired Science reports…

“The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London, lead author of a new paper in Physical Review Letters. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on. When viewed close up, the matter in the universe bunches up into stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. But as you zoom out, cosmologists expect the universe to look more and more smooth, sort of the way details in an earthly landscape blend together when viewed from an airplane.”

Take note, the article outlines these areas could be wrong in light of their belief in the big bang ‘theory’…

1) The most basic and fundamental law of them all, gravity.

2) Einstein’s general relativity.

3) The model within the big bang needs to be tweaked to force the observational data into it.

4) Fudge Factor: Dark energy…“The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate…. The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all.

5) Observations-” where they say, “…the clumpiness could also come from systematic errors in the observations….”

Like stated before, it’s not like the Big Bang ‘theory’ is questioned to the point where it’s falsified among secular astronomers who stand by their observations but don’t seem to know what to do with the lack of confirmations with their ‘theory’. The hard evidence for the big bang and dark energy are very flimsy at best!

One asks, if astronomers who are unable to judge the validity or their own observations, and if some of the most solid theories in all of science (gravity and general relativity) require an overhaul due to the ever-growing complexity of their ‘theory’, then how much trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

For example, the story about how living things evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. In June 3, of science, experiments were conducted with bacteria. They demonstrated that adaptations do occur but they also discovered the pace of adaptations decelerates over time. “Proportional reductions of a cost became successively less beneficial as the cost itself was alleviated” says Harvard evolutionary biologist Christopher Marx.

The changes in the DNA of bacteria were not a free bonus but came with a cost. It’s another example of the law of diminishing returns which has been coming up more and more and is what creationism predicted in nature when it comes to adaption with mutations!

Just like the big bang as science progresses with amazing technology, the more observations are not matching up with the fundamental principles of evolution. Again one asks, how much faith and trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the failing paradigm of the big bang much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Failing Paradigm Questions Basic Law And More

  1. Far too many things wrong in this post – I can’t be bothered anymore.

    Just a few: nobody in cosmology uses the phrase ‘big bang’, but if you want to anyway, fine. It is a theory, though, without quotes, whereas the bible is not a theory, so I have no idea why you are comparing the two.

    Furthermore, the big bang theory does predict lumps, but it certainly does not predict an explosion. You are making the usual basic mistake of confusing ‘expansion’ with ‘explosion’. The ‘big bang’ (a lousy term) is nothing like an explosion.

  2. Or are presenting the bible as a ‘fact’ ? Which it isn’t either. It is a religious book.

  3. Take note, the article outlines these areas could be wrong in light of their belief in the big bang ‘theory’…

    1) The most basic and fundamental law of them all, gravity.

    2) Einstein’s general relativity.

    3) The model within the big bang needs to be tweaked to force the observational data into it.

    4) Fudge Factor: Dark energy…

    Here we have it, from Michael’s own mouth. The fundamental difference between science and creationism. Scientists are willing to consider that new evidence may show that even the most cherished theories MAY BE WRONG. Creationists, on the other hand, insist that their theory CANNOT BE WRONG, regardless of the evidence.

    Do we need any further proof that creationism is not science?

  4. Michael indeed makes a number of factual errors in this post, enough to curl the toenails of a professional astronomer. But this one, only two sentences in, is so goes way beyond ignorance, into the realm of sheer stupidity.

    For example, the big bang makes no predictions about lumps rather it predicts a uniform explosion.

    The whole basis of this theory is that it is a quantum event. All quantum events have fluctuations. Thus lumps. This is one of the basic predictions of the theory. Anyone who doesn’t know this has corn meal mush for brains.

    Once again, why should anyone trust Michael to interpret facts, when he can’t even get the facts themselves straight?

    .

    There is, of course another possibility. Michael has been told many times in this blog that the big bang was not an “explosion,” and that theory predicts cosmic structures from its quantum irregularities. One could therefore conclude that his continuing denials do not result from ignorance at all, but are deliberate lies.

    Because of the long history of such perversely false statements, I am beginning to incline toward the latter view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s