[MD] Science Wars

[markhsmit]

Hi Marsha,

The big bang theory has some problems with it.  I think the 
whole idea is based on our infatuation with evolution.  Because
we think we can explain why animal bones look the way they
do, we use it to explain everything.  I have presented by view of
evolution in previous posts.

Tom van Flandern has a good article on the issues with the 
big bang, showing how most data supports a static universe,
at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

Don't believe everything those scientist tell you (I know you don't :-).

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:24:20 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
At 11:13 AM 4/30/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>
>The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This
>contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant
>is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form
>of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given
>observed expansion rate
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Or that there are/ have been more 'bangs'.?
>
>Andre


Bangettes? Do-lang-do-lang-do-lang...


.
_____________

Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
. 

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/