What do we have here, more modern scientific ASSUMPTIONS being labeled as fact do we?
Let me get this straight now and put this is laymen's terms.
People, long time ago, come up with the Big Bang Theory, cause it just sounds right. Even then people are touting it as fact, especially the ones that
can't think of anything better than to spat in the face off all religious matter at once. There was no proof then, just a straight up theory, but it
was still "fact" to the science folk.
Then they come up with a microwave model of what they believe it might look like if the big bang actually did happen. Because even though when this
microwave model was being made back in, 1992 was it, they were able to map all the hot and cold spots that the known galaxies left behind as the poot
pooted their way from the central point of where the BIG BANG took place.
And now, when they matched it all up, it all matched up oh so perfectly to the microwave models and all that jazz but wait... we've discovered a
whole bunch of new galaxies and celestial models since then, and there are apparently millions more out there according to other scientific theory.
But their models being "up to date" is besides the point. It is the very fact that they use a blatant assumption in the damn explanation of their
proof that was summarized by the OP.
These spots are related to the gravitational field in the early universe, only instants after the Big Bang, and are the seeds for the giant clusters
of galaxies that stretch hundreds of millions of light years across the universe.
and from the article
COBE was built at Goddard to measure microwave and infrared light from the early universe. COBE determined that the cosmic microwave background, which
is essentially the afterglow of the Big Bang, has a temperature of approximately minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit.
So the satellite, the COBE, told you that the Big Bang left behind temps of 455 Fahrenheit? Well wait a minute, how the hell does a satellite know
what temps the Big Bang left behind? How the hell does a satellite know what a Big Bang is?
That's right it doesn't. The satellite registers differentials in temperatures. A bunch of scientists look at this differentials with the already
set in stone belief that the Big Bang happened, and all of a sudden these scientists can safely assume through the 150 billion year old minds that
they know what kind of temperatures the Big Bang left of and what they should be looking for to be proving it.
Here is the same essential argument in more ridiculous light:
I belief the man is a werewolf. I also believe that werewolves have moles on their left butt cheek. Since that man has a mole on his left butt cheek,
I am correct. He is a werewolf.
Circular reasoning. Loaded questioning. Ludic fallacy. Causal oversimplification. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
That is the list of fallacies this "scientific proof" uses to "prove" the Big Bang, something that so long as the scientific method is actually
held in any kind of regard in our scientific community, and so long as we remain anywhere remotely close to our current level of technology - no one
is ever going to prove.
No matter how many rogue 400+ degree microwaves there are out in outer space.