| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
10 May 2007 02:12:18 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Big Bang?
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.
Steidl, pp. 207-208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.
"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.
"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.
Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 06:37:51 PM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178824338.857874.48210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Big Bang?
Some quotes showing good science at work .. theories being adjusted so they
explain the facts .. unlike religious belief, science has a reality that
they need to model, and if the model isn't quite right, they adjust the
model (not ignore reality).
But not a thing there about evolution being disproved (nothing really
disproving the big-bang either)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 04:20:19 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 10 May 2007 12:12:18 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com>
let us all know that:
Big Bang?
Has nothing to do with evolution.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 02:36:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1178824338.857874.48210
@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Pahu said...
Big Bang?
What of it? Your subject line indicated that you were going
to write about evolution.
You do know that evolution and cosmogenesis are two vastly
different fields, right?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 07:04:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1178824338.857874.48210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
Will you guys please get it right. The Big Bang has nothing to do with
evolution.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 08:45:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1178824338.857874.48210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
So, given the value of one parameter, the baryon-to-photon ratio,
it's possible to correctly calculate four others: the observed
abundances of the elements D, 3He, 4He and 7Li. Clearly you
don't know how to recognize a successful theory when you see one.
If the theory was wrong, you would be unlikely to be able to
find a value for the baryon-to-photon ratio that would let you
calculate even two of those four element abundances correctly.
Getting all four right is a strong verification of the theory.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 08:10:51 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2007 12:12:18 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.creationscience.com/
"Creation science" is an oxymoron, numbnuts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
11 May 2007 02:56:07 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:rjg743dmeq57u2ballo6odce717qppc044@4ax.com...
On 10 May 2007 12:12:18 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.creationscience.com/
"Creation science" is an oxymoron, numbnuts.
Careful. He probably thinks that an oxymoron is
a dumb bull.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 03:27:44 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2007 12:12:18 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution, Einstein.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 02:25:21 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2007 12:12:18 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
Why are you posting this stupidity to alt.atheism, liar?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 02:16:39 PM |
|
|
On 10 mei, 21:12, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.
Steidl, pp. 207-208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.
"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.
"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.
Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.
http://www.creationscience.com/
Do not give false evidence in your subject please!
There is nothing in this text regarding evolution.
Peter van Velzen
May 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Budikka Disproves Pahu |
10 May 2007 08:09:06 PM |
|
|
On May 10, 2:12 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Nothing!)
After I stripped out everything from your message that had the cube
root of squat to do with evolution, there was nothing left to repsond
to. So sorry!
But I'd be delighted to formally debate the creation "science" which
overturns evolution right here in these fora. Or your science which
better explains the distribution and diversity of life on Earth than
does the Theory of Evolution. Your choice.
All you will need is two things:
1. The science to support your claims
and
2. The guts to face me in a formal debate.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find either one, you lying,
pathetic cowardly, hypocritical little chicken.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "ekrubmeg" |
|
| Title: Re: Budikka Disproves Pahu |
11 May 2007 11:24:58 AM |
|
|
On May 10, 6:09 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On May 10, 2:12 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Nothing!)
After I stripped out everything from your message that had the cube
root of squat to do with evolution, there was nothing left to repsond
to. So sorry!
But I'd be delighted to formally debate the creation "science" which
overturns evolution right here in these fora. Or your science which
better explains the distribution and diversity of life on Earth than
does the Theory of Evolution. Your choice.
All you will need is two things:
1. The science to support your claims
and
2. The guts to face me in a formal debate.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find either one, you lying,
pathetic cowardly, hypocritical little chicken.
Budikka
I'm sure such a shallow mind couldn't see ***** on the farm. I've got
my god wand here and I keep waving it but you are still around.
Evidently there is nothing to it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 02:16:41 PM |
|
|
On May 10, 8:12 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Big Bang?
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.
Steidl, pp. 207-208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.
"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.
"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.
Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.
http://www.creationscience.com/
It's an elephant's arse, stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 06:00:08 PM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1178824338.857874.48210
@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Big Bang?
Nothing to do with evolution.
Read and weep:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
Van Flandern is a kook. He was one of the face on Mars idiots.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
Halton Arp is also a crackpot. He is one of those that desperately cling to
their ideas after they have been disproved. The high resolution images
taken by the HST blew his "quasars fired out of galaxies with different red
shifts" idea out of the water.
"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.
Steidl, pp. 207-208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.
1971 modern cosmology - you have to be kidding. The world has moved on.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.
Don't be stupid. Berrylium is produced by spallation of heavy elements by
cosmic rays. The heavy elements are produced in supernova. The first stars
were all giants as the low metalicity of the proto stellar nebulae from
which they formed meant they could not cool efficiently and accumulated
much more mass before collapsing into a star than is common in the modern
universe. These first generation stars going supernova in very short time
seeded the material from which the stars studied above were formed.
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Read and weep:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
LOL 1971. BTW Burgbidge is Halton Arp's side kick.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.
Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.
http://www.creationscience.com/
Creationscience = scam. All they are doing is quote mining old scientific
papers that have long since been debunked.
Klamzon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
10 May 2007 03:08:49 PM |
|
|
Pahu the moron:
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 |
|
|
