Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
There is no question to it that the universe is eternal, i tend to agree. Many papers that I'm reading discuss bounce and cyclic parts of the universe and not as a total.
And yet my mate emailed me this link on the Big Bang
Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.
Evidence for the Big Bang
Evidence for the Big Bang
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Darn I was afraid you would ask that.
Read it it through first than when you have completed it than I will discuss it.
|
Well I read it. You did not mention what you do "
not agree with".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Also there is a difference between evidence and using the term standard model and reallying that as evidence.
|
I would agree with the implication of
"
The absence of evidence is Not the evidence of absence".
However, in this blog on BBT -
Evidence for the Big Bang
(which when printed out is 54 pages in length has over 30 pages of
verified and
validated evidence !
Plus saying that evidence is not evidence, does not make it so.
From you many posts in which you make claims or draw conclusion without
any attempt in the use of the scientific method.
One must conclude that your paradigm of logic is other than conclusion
drawn from a hypothesis using analysis. You
must be Creationist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
I post links because the abstracts are from the paper and my opinion only adds to the chinese whisper.
|
As a quote from Shakespeare that ends, "Much ado about nothing!"
maddog
