The CMB remains the sole evidence for the big bang theory (Faulkner 2003, pp. 31–34). However, there are several problems with the CMB that call into question its cosmic origin. If the CMB does not have a cosmic origin, then it may be locally generated. If this is the case, then the big bang model is in serious trouble. Naturally, cosmologists will resist this possibility.
Today we have entire branches of science - so called theoretical sciences - that have all but replaced experimentation with mathematical equations. These equations require assumptions based on opinion. Until proven, opinion remains opinion, just a story, not "fact."
Red shift theory is just more pure speculation, and has multiple problems, certainly not irrefutable or “fact” as presented. Without evidence, that would be a lie; oops, caught again.
I claim from the absence of evidence, Big Bang has at least 10 problems:
1. Everything comes from nothing.
2. Nothing isn't really nothing.
3. Monopole, horizon, and flatness problems.
4. Eternal inflation -- produces infinite number of universes (unexplained)
5. Dark Matter
6. Dark Energy
7. Model exclues 95% of the universe.
8. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
9. Extreme fine tuning.
10.Multiverse
The Big Bang Model is anti-science because it violates the laws of physics and law of conservation, is self-contradictory, has absurd implications (Boltzman Brain), and refutes itself.
The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained.
This story of origins is entirely fiction, with only math to back it up.
Sometimes it is argued that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position." Most scientists believe in evolution. But this doesn't make it true. This fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority," or Ad Populum Fallacy.
Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.
This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.
Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?
Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. The entire world has been hoodwinked w/o any valid evidence whatsoever! This is a blasphemy to intelligence and knowledge and truth, a grave error and destructive to us all, perpetrated with ulterior motive to destroy God so man can be god. There is simply too much evidence of coordinated effort to remove God from our society, an intolerance of Christianity. The trumpets have sounded and the push back has begun.
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence.
What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.
Evolution is not based on mathematical models, and there is plenty of other evidence for both. The scientific ignorance in religious circles is pathetic.
Answers & Comments
Do you have a question?
The CMB remains the sole evidence for the big bang theory (Faulkner 2003, pp. 31–34). However, there are several problems with the CMB that call into question its cosmic origin. If the CMB does not have a cosmic origin, then it may be locally generated. If this is the case, then the big bang model is in serious trouble. Naturally, cosmologists will resist this possibility.
Today we have entire branches of science - so called theoretical sciences - that have all but replaced experimentation with mathematical equations. These equations require assumptions based on opinion. Until proven, opinion remains opinion, just a story, not "fact."
Red shift theory is just more pure speculation, and has multiple problems, certainly not irrefutable or “fact” as presented. Without evidence, that would be a lie; oops, caught again.
I claim from the absence of evidence, Big Bang has at least 10 problems:
1. Everything comes from nothing.
2. Nothing isn't really nothing.
3. Monopole, horizon, and flatness problems.
4. Eternal inflation -- produces infinite number of universes (unexplained)
5. Dark Matter
6. Dark Energy
7. Model exclues 95% of the universe.
8. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
9. Extreme fine tuning.
10.Multiverse
The Big Bang Model is anti-science because it violates the laws of physics and law of conservation, is self-contradictory, has absurd implications (Boltzman Brain), and refutes itself.
The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained.
This story of origins is entirely fiction, with only math to back it up.
Sometimes it is argued that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position." Most scientists believe in evolution. But this doesn't make it true. This fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority," or Ad Populum Fallacy.
Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.
This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.
Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?
Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. The entire world has been hoodwinked w/o any valid evidence whatsoever! This is a blasphemy to intelligence and knowledge and truth, a grave error and destructive to us all, perpetrated with ulterior motive to destroy God so man can be god. There is simply too much evidence of coordinated effort to remove God from our society, an intolerance of Christianity. The trumpets have sounded and the push back has begun.
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence.
What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.
Empirical Evidence against evolution
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20180...
Fossil Evidence
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20191...
Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...
Five Evidences of Noah’s Flood
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20190...
There is nothing mathematical about biological evolution. It is based on obvious facts, and on the fossil record.
Evolution is based on many different scientific studies including, genetics comparitive anatomy, paleontology, etc.
The rejection of scientific reality is based on an ancient myth and is rejected by the majority of world-wide churches.
They are accepted as true because of the massive amount of evidence supporting them, not because of any math models.
How cute, an ignorant fundie. You are genetically different from either of your parents. THAT is evolution and it has nothing to do with math.
Evolution is not based on mathematical models, and there is plenty of other evidence for both. The scientific ignorance in religious circles is pathetic.
You pick objects that you think are the oldest and make a model based on decay.
My God can create children of Israel from stone John the Baptist
God can do all things
Religion, being based on lies and nonsense doesn't mean that's true either.
I'll stick with math over conjecture, thanks anyway.
Science denial is a form of religious nuttery...
Science observes and reports. Science is not a political tool.
Science does no pretend to "know" about Gods and flying beasts as described by the professional Clergy...