The Big Bang - Revision history

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:59:34Z

1 revision

at 07:59, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:59:33Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:39:54Z

1 revision

at 07:39, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:39:54Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-30T07:30:12Z

1 revision

at 07:30, 30 May 2014

2014-05-30T07:30:11Z

Paul: 1 revision

2014-05-29T14:28:07Z

1 revision

at 14:28, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T14:28:06Z

Paul at 13:45, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T13:45:59Z

Paul at 13:45, 29 May 2014

2014-05-29T13:45:27Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ==References==
 <references></references>
-  [[Category:Umasking Evolution]]
+  [[Category:Unmasking Evolution]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Evolution Says|The universe started with a huge explosion called the‘Big Bang’ 20 billion years ago. This formed the stars and galaxies. The galaxies are swirling and rapidly moving apart. This is proof of the Big Bang. }}
 ==The Facts Are ..... ==
-#(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
+{{Fact|1}} The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "<ref>The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295</ref>
-(4) New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". <ref>Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20</ref>
+{{Fact|2}} The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning.
-(5) "The Big Bang Theory is crumbling. But many of my colleagues refuse to believe it ..... But, as in Galileo's day, entrenched ideas are difficult to change ..... It does not bother cosmologists that there is no evidence for such speculation [of the Big Bang Theory] or that none of these ideas solves the problem". <ref>A quote by the plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, in the Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7</ref>
+{{Fact|3}} "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. <ref>Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24</ref>
-(7) "The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big-bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data are ignored". <ref>Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280, 1981 p:522-523</ref>
+{{Fact|4}} New findings in the realm of optics and plasma physics has thrown doubt on the Big Bang theory, indicating that the origin of the universe is purely a hypothesis, and not a fact. A Yale University physicist is quoted as saying, "There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model [of the Big Bang] on that may be wrong". <ref>Scientific American, September, 1987 p:18-20</ref>
-(8) "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." <ref>Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40</ref>
+{{Fact|6}} "As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome .... I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory." <ref>Written by Sir Fred Hoyle, famous British astronomer and cosmologist in "The Big Bang Under Attack", Science Digest, Vol. 92, May, 1984 p:84</ref>
-(9) "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." <ref>Written by Astronomer Halton Arp in "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View", Nature, Vol. 346, 1990 p:807-812</ref>
+{{Fact|8}} "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state." <ref>Written by evolutionist and physicist Don A. Page in "Inflation Does not Explain Time Asymmetry", Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983 p:40</ref>
-(10) "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". <ref>Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3</ref>
+{{Fact|10}} "Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations". <ref>Editorial comment on the Big Bang theory in New Scientist, December 21-28, 1992 p:3</ref>
 ==References==
 <references></references>

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 #(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
 #(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning.
 No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. <ref>Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295</ref>
 #(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. <ref>Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24</ref>

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==The Facts Are ..... ==
-(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
+#(1) The Big Bang is not the only scientific theory on the origins of the universe. The Steady State and Plasma theories are both supported by many scientists who do not accept the Big Bang theory. These theories propose alternative explanations for the 'proofs' of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory cannot therefore be regarded as a fact. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295
-(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning.
+#(2) The Big Bang theory requires the input of a tremendous amount of energy at the very beginning.
 No proof or explanation of the source of this energy has so far been forth coming. <ref>Eric Lerner "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295</ref>
-(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. <ref>Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24</ref>
+#(3) "..... the fact of galaxies moving apart can be explained by many other states of matter and energy than a primeval atom that exploded. For that matter, the alleged explosion produces radiation and high-speed elementary particles, not galaxies. Galaxies moving apart have nothing whatever to do with the expanding motion of debris from an explosion." Astrophysicist Dr. Harold Slusher contending that the expanding universe is not a result of the 'big bang'. <ref>Quoted by Harold S. Slusher in his book, "The Origin of the Universe" (revised ed.), Institute of Creation Research: El Cajon (California), 1980 p:24</ref>

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:59, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:39, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:30, 30 May 2014
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:28, 29 May 2014
(No difference)