It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The arguments I posed for the BBT are not arguments that are logical when it comes to applying them to MY belief. MY belief is, as I said, NOT BASED IN SCIENCE....If it was, then sure, you could call me a hypocrit for believing in it despite the lack of observational evidence.
They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened.
And again with the name calling. Arrogant, foolish, hypocritical...what else do you have? Oh yes, and go look for the names that I have called you.
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex
How is that a cop out attitude? Everybody and their grandmother knows creationism is based on faith...not scientific observations....
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
God is Gay.
Francis filament - ...
Almost every evolutionary astronomer would concur that two billion years, according to the evolutionary timeline of cosmic formations, is not enough time for the formation of such a cluster.
...Of course, you can go the Arp route and say that the galaxies in this structure are actually relatively nearby but have high intrinsic redshift. And of course, you'd have to support that claim, which Arp can't even do. Unless you want to come up with another "theory" to support your first "theory"...maybe call it "the theory of intrinsic faintness"...
Does the big bang theory "predict" these circumstances? Or are they simply anomalies and exceptions that we can slide under the rug until we come up with some other BS excuse?