| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
11 Apr 2007 05:05:23 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Big Bang?
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the
2=2E7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very
homogeneous in the beginning." M. Mitchell Waldrop, "The Large-Scale
Structure of the Universe Gets Larger-Maybe," Science, Vol. 238, 13
November 1987, p. 894.
Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, "Mapping the Universe,"
Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897-903. {See also M.
Mitchell Waldrop, "Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall," Science,
Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885}.
John Travis, "Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky," Science, Vol. 263,
25 March 1994, p. 1684.
Will Saunders et al., "The Density Field of the Local Universe,"
Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32-38.
"The map's most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-
years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found.
Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger
than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey
2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution."
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Survey," Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003,
p=2E 276.
James Glanz, "Precocious Structures Found," Science, Vol. 272, 14 June
1996, p. 1590.
For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly
precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the practically
uniform CBR. Without concentrations, matter could never
gravitationally contract to form galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the
popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major
shortcomings were not mentioned:
The concentrations were only one part in 100,000-not much more than
the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be
expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated,
"Gravity can't, over the age of the universe, amplify these
irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies]." Travis, p.
1684.
"[The] data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks
remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small
area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the
satellite's resolution." George Musser, "Skewing the Cosmic Bell
Curve," Scientific American, Vol. 281, No. 3, September 1999, p. 28.
Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could
easily account for the faint signal.
Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100
or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
"=2E.. mysterious discrepancies have arisen between [the inflationary
big bang] theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is
getting into a major jam." Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz,
"Is the Universe Out of Tune? Scientific American, Vol. 293, August
2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003=B0C) detected have a strong
statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52-55.] They
probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
Whatever caused these slight temperature variations (0.00003=B0C)
probably had nothing to do with a big bang.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
12 Apr 2007 10:13:17 AM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176329123.181828.140850@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Big Bang?
Doesn't have anything to do with evolution, idiot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ThePhisherKIng Locker@BusStation" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 06:21:01 PM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1176329123.181828.140850
@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Big Bang?
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the
2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very
homogeneous in the beginning." M. Mitchell Waldrop, "The Large-Scale
Structure of the Universe Gets Larger-Maybe," Science, Vol. 238, 13
November 1987, p. 894.
Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, "Mapping the Universe,"
Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897-903. {See also M.
Mitchell Waldrop, "Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall," Science,
Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885}.
John Travis, "Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky," Science, Vol. 263,
25 March 1994, p. 1684.
Will Saunders et al., "The Density Field of the Local Universe,"
Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32-38.
"The map's most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-
years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found.
Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger
than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey
2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution."
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Survey," Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003,
p. 276.
James Glanz, "Precocious Structures Found," Science, Vol. 272, 14 June
1996, p. 1590.
For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly
precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the practically
uniform CBR. Without concentrations, matter could never
gravitationally contract to form galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the
popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major
shortcomings were not mentioned:
The concentrations were only one part in 100,000-not much more than
the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be
expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated,
"Gravity can't, over the age of the universe, amplify these
irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies]." Travis, p.
1684.
"[The] data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks
remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small
area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the
satellite's resolution." George Musser, "Skewing the Cosmic Bell
Curve," Scientific American, Vol. 281, No. 3, September 1999, p. 28.
Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could
easily account for the faint signal.
Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100
or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
"... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between [the inflationary
big bang] theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is
getting into a major jam." Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz,
"Is the Universe Out of Tune? Scientific American, Vol. 293, August
2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003°C) detected have a strong
statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52-55.] They
probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
Whatever caused these slight temperature variations (0.00003°C)
probably had nothing to do with a big bang.
http://www.creationscience.com/
Creationscience.com is not a scientific source. It's a religious source.
Come back when you can present real scientific evidence to bolster your
claim.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 07:12:12 PM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1176329123.181828.140850
@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Big Bang?
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the
2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very
homogeneous in the beginning." M. Mitchell Waldrop, "The Large-Scale
Structure of the Universe Gets Larger-Maybe," Science, Vol. 238, 13
November 1987, p. 894.
Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, "Mapping the Universe,"
Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897-903. {See also M.
Mitchell Waldrop, "Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall," Science,
Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885}.
John Travis, "Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky," Science, Vol. 263,
25 March 1994, p. 1684.
Will Saunders et al., "The Density Field of the Local Universe,"
Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32-38.
"The map's most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-
years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found.
Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger
than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey
2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution."
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Survey," Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003,
p. 276.
James Glanz, "Precocious Structures Found," Science, Vol. 272, 14 June
1996, p. 1590.
For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly
precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the practically
uniform CBR. Without concentrations, matter could never
gravitationally contract to form galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the
popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major
shortcomings were not mentioned:
The papers you have cited are way out out date. It's now the 21st century. Read up
about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
The results are in excellent agreement with the CDM model. The big open question to be
determined is just what the DM actually is (C= Cold D=Dark M=matter). That this stuff
exists was put beyond dispute by the recent gravitional lensing observations of the
Bullet cluster.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
The problem with you cretinists looking through old papers finding unanswered
questions, or problems and failing to do the research to see if the questions have
already been answered. I suspect it is more deliberate dishonesty than sloppy research
though as shown by the t.o quote mone project.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
BTW nothing in your post had anything at all to do with evolution, which is biology
not astronomy. You would get more credibility if you ever figure out which science is
which.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 09:05:38 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns99107C23FFAE6Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1176329123.181828.140850
@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
The problem with you cretinists looking through old papers finding
unanswered
questions, or problems and failing to do the research to see if the
questions have
already been answered. I suspect it is more deliberate dishonesty than
sloppy research
though as shown by the t.o quote mone project.
This shouldn't be surprising. It's the same salad bar "research" they do
within their own Bible to find passages that support their preconceived
ideas, regardless of context.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 10:47:39 PM |
|
|
In our last episode, <1176329123.181828.140850@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Pahu broadcast on alt.atheism:
Big Bang?
Nothing to do with evolution.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 649 days to go.
Chinese Terrorists:: Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company Ltd.
Identified :: Wangdian Industrial Zone, Peixian, CN-32, China 221623
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 05:59:09 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2007 15:05:23 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
Has nothing to do with evolution, you fucking idiot.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 08:16:54 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2007 15:05:23 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang
It didn't. It's an artifact of our seeing patterns.
It would help if you understood the stuff you copy and paste.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 09:53:35 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2007 15:05:23 -0700, "Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
And just what do you know about science, Skippy?
Here, use this space;
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
12 Apr 2007 05:25:23 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 11:05 pm, "Pahu" <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang,
Clearly, it didn't condense if it stretches over half a billion light
years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gorn" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 07:42:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 3:05 pm, "Pahu" <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
One of the largest structures ever seen in the universe, "The Great
Wall," was discovered in 1989. It is composed of tens of thousands of
galaxies lined up in a wall-like structure, stretching across half a
billion light-years of space. It is so large that none of its edges
have been found. An even larger structure, the Sloan Great Wall, was
discovered in 2003 and is the largest structure known in the universe.
"The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the
2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very
homogeneous in the beginning." M. Mitchell Waldrop, "The Large-Scale
Structure of the Universe Gets Larger-Maybe," Science, Vol. 238, 13
November 1987, p. 894.
Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, "Mapping the Universe,"
Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897-903. {See also M.
Mitchell Waldrop, "Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall," Science,
Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, p. 885}.
John Travis, "Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky," Science, Vol. 263,
25 March 1994, p. 1684.
Will Saunders et al., "The Density Field of the Local Universe,"
Nature, Vol. 349, 3 January 1991, pp. 32-38.
"The map's most eye-catching feature is the Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies, a clustering of galaxies that stretches 1.37 billion light-
years across the sky and is the largest cosmic structure ever found.
Astronomers worried that such a humongous structure, 80 percent bigger
than the famous Great Wall of galaxies first discerned in a sky survey
2 decades ago, might violate the accepted model of galaxy evolution."
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Survey," Science News, Vol. 164, 1 November 2003,
p. 276.
James Glanz, "Precocious Structures Found," Science, Vol. 272, 14 June
1996, p. 1590.
For many years, big bang theorists searched in vain with increasingly
precise instruments for temperature concentrations in the practically
uniform CBR. Without concentrations, matter could never
gravitationally contract to form galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Finally, in 1992, with great fanfare, an announcement was made in the
popular media that slight concentrations were discovered. Major
shortcomings were not mentioned:
The concentrations were only one part in 100,000-not much more than
the errors in the instruments. Such slight concentrations could not be
expected to initiate much clustering. As Margaret Geller stated,
"Gravity can't, over the age of the universe, amplify these
irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies]." Travis, p.
1684.
"[The] data are notoriously noisy, and the purported effect looks
remarkably like an instrumental glitch: it appears only in one small
area of the sky and on an angular scale close to the limit of the
satellite's resolution." George Musser, "Skewing the Cosmic Bell
Curve," Scientific American, Vol. 281, No. 3, September 1999, p. 28.
Slight errors or omissions in the many data processing steps could
easily account for the faint signal.
Reported variations in the CMB spanned areas of the sky that were 100
or 1,000 times too broad to produce galaxies.
"... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between [the inflationary
big bang] theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is
getting into a major jam." Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz,
"Is the Universe Out of Tune? Scientific American, Vol. 293, August
2005, pp. 49, 55.
The slight temperature variations (0.00003=B0C) detected have a strong
statistical connection with the solar system. [Ibid., pp. 52-55.] They
probably have nothing to do with a big bang.
Whatever caused these slight temperature variations (0.00003=B0C)
probably had nothing to do with a big bang.
http://www.creationscience.com/
What does this have to do with evolution?
(Rhetorical question. Obvious answer: Nothing.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
12 Apr 2007 07:27:31 AM |
|
|
On Apr 11, 6:05 pm, "Pahu" <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
Big Bang? What does that have to do with evolution? Why do creationist
idiots mix the two up? Seriously, its like finding a disputed passage
in the Torah about rabbits chewing their cud and then blaming the
adherents of Islam about it.
Here's a clue, if you are going to challange evolution is any way, at
least part of your challange has to involve organic compounds. Even a
fifth grader knows that.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 06:26:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:05:23 -0700, Pahu wrote:
Big Bang?
Is not part of the theory of evolution.
Try again.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
12 Apr 2007 06:56:45 AM |
|
|
Pahu wrote:
Big Bang?
That's nice. Problem is, the big bang has absolutely nothing to do with
evolution.
http://www.creationscience.com/
Oh Please. Like this is a valid, unbiased source of information.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 Apr 2007 09:23:37 PM |
|
|
Poophead:
Big Bang?
Braindead?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|