"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:j5dQg.197236$1i1.174641@attbi_s72...

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:xIbQg.197120$1i1.120982@attbi_s72...

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Since the rather damming evidence that there is no shadow from the

CMBR,

indicating that it could not have originated from great distances as
required by the Big Bang theory (See 'Big Bang's Afterglow Fails
Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test' posted by me on the 6th of September),

Big

Bang

advocates have been thunderously quiet. Why hasn't anyone attempted

to

question the findings or defend the Big Bang Theory in light of the

loss

of

CMBR as supporting evidence?

The shadow effect *has* been observed!

Those initial observations did not use data from the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). From the article I posted,
"Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in

the

microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from

WMAP,

which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave
background."

Like many Big bangers, you failed to read the contrary evidence.

You fail to grasp the idea that with copious data supporting the big

bang

and some discrepancies here and there, that a more likely scenario is
an error in the measurement process or the understanding there of.

Your argument fails to nullify the BB... Furthermore, discrepancies are
what science is all about--understanding the discrepancies often

furthers

our understanding of nature and, in the process, refines our models.

There is no uncontroversial evidence for the big bang theory. In fact the
BBT are many with each one last a few years before failing in the face of
contrary evidence to one or more of its major predictions. The current BBT,
Lambda-CDM is just a few years old.

Recent contrary evidence includes the discovery of that the furthest galaxy
clusters yet seen by Hubble's deep field are actually old clusters and not
young ones as the BBT predicts (the probably of there being an old cluster
at that distance is very low but not zero, but two clusters?); the discovery
that at least some galactic clusters are older than the universe (theories
of how 'accelerated aging' could occur have been proposed) and now the
foundation stone, the origin of the CMBR, is in question.

Just what uncontroversial evidence is there?

I would point out that what science is all about is the battle of competing
theories where clear evidence one way or the other is unavailable. Contrary
evidence for one theory generally accumulates in the other. In the case
of the BBT their is copious data available for a contrary theory of the
evolution of the universe, but there are no competent cosmologists in modern
science to form one. Thus there is the illusion of copious data for the
prevailing theory only because contrary data and observation is not
highlighted by a competing theory - contrary evidence can, by and large, be
ignored until someone can come up with a way to incorporate the contrary
evidence into the prevailing model.

This is how the Christian world view worked for centuries - contrary
evidence, such as dinosaur bones, was ignored in lou of an explanation that
incorporated the data/observation into the prevailing model.