Let The Debate Begin: EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM

[SBR_John]

Interesting.

So you're using essentially similar logic that (some) atheists use to explain their lack of belief in a God.

Talk about picking and choosing to fit a narrative.

Some atheists seem to corner themselves in by not allowing the evidence to answer the questions.

To even consider floating particles evolved into even single cell organisms much less complex humanoid life is asinine and insults basic intelligence.

To not be able to prove that human life existed on earth except very very recently because it destroys the evolution argument is akin to the previous point. I can go in my back yard and find a 5 million year old sea shell fossil. We have fossil prove of dinosaurs but none of any humans.

Atheists are sometimes worse than religious folks. I say drop the entrenched cult stuff and look at the evidence.

[ChalkyDog]

There isn't a debate, not in the sense that Nye and Ham had one.

This is not that incredible to think about. Most people believe in evolution, even very devout Christians. I know many of them. It's not even hard to reconcile.

The difference lies in what created the big bang.

Athiest or people who don't believe in the existence of god go with Hawking's theory.
Those who believe in god, usually say that god created the big bang (or something similar to this).

Ham is a moron, and only the dumbest of the dumb argue otherwise.

So, stop pretending like there is some huge gap between the two beliefs. Both theories, God v. Hawing theory require a great amount of "faith".

[Seaweed]

Pretty tough to see how you could.

If you believe that man came from apes through an evolutionary process, then there is no way you could believe that a Creator God made man.

They can't reconcile. It's one or the other.

This is so false. The Catholic Church makes it clear that you can believe in both Creation and evolution. If you do, the distinction is that when the first humans evolved, it was where the distinct human soul came into being. I believe that God is behind everything in this universe and that evolution does not contradict anything.

[Bruce Norris]

You need Jesus.

or a dictionary, and my son's first grade teacher.

[Footy4Jesus]

This is so false. The Catholic Church makes it clear that you can believe in both Creation and evolution. If you do, the distinction is that when the first humans evolved, it was where the distinct human soul came into being. I believe that God is behind everything in this universe and that evolution does not contradict anything.

I agree with you here. The belief in evolution in no way contradicts your belief in creation. Regardless if there was evolution or not there had to be a beginning, right? Evolution is just Gods way of creating creatures that can adapt to their environment. If you believe in creation and the biblical God, then God rested on the seventh day. Whether you believe that the seven days should be taken literally or meaning seven periods of time is up for interpretation. Anyways, if you do believe that he rested on the seventh day then why couldn't he create evolution of the life he created to take care of themselves so he wouldn't have to get up from his rest to create something new on the eighth day?

I will also say that the Catholic church does not speak for all of Christianity. I myself am not a catholic. I don't identify with any denomination. I do go to a baptist church but only because I have been led by the Lord to attend there. All of us who believe in Christ are Christians and trying to isolate ourselves in one denomination or another was not what Jesus intended. It is what the apostle Paul consistently wrote about in his letters and it only serves to drive the body of Christ apart and not come together as one. I know many Catholics that I would say are devout Christians. I attend a Jesuit Catholic university and find it an amazing and enriching experience.

However, I believe that the catholic institution has in many ways hurt Christianity. There are many things with Catholicism that are entirely un-biblical. Calling anyone else but God your father, worshiping Mary, worshiping so-called saints when it is clearly stated in scripture that all believers are saints, penance, purgatory, the hierarchy of the church, having a man (the pope) in between you and God, relics worshiped like idols, religious rituals, having the bible read to you in latin where nobody can understand so it serves no purpose.. I could go on but none of these things have a foundation in scripture. The catholic institution does many great things for society as in spreading the word of Jesus and doing charitable deeds far exceeding other groups, but when it comes to the Bible they cannot solely hold a claim to it.

Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did not create the Reformation as I've argued in class many times and wrote a final paper regarding the subject. They were only bringing back the basic principles of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura that wasn't outlined by them, but was originally brought to us by the Jews in the Old Testament, Jesus, and by the apostle Paul in the New Testament. The bible, nothing else added.

[Footy4Jesus]

There isn't a debate, not in the sense that Nye and Ham had one.

This is not that incredible to think about. Most people believe in evolution, even very devout Christians. I know many of them. It's not even hard to reconcile.

The difference lies in what created the big bang.

Athiest or people who don't believe in the existence of god go with Hawking's theory.
Those who believe in god, usually say that god created the big bang (or something similar to this).

Ham is a moron, and only the dumbest of the dumb argue otherwise.

So, stop pretending like there is some huge gap between the two beliefs. Both theories, God v. Hawing theory require a great amount of "faith".

I could drink a beer and have a great conversation with this guy. You seem to have your head on ChalkyDog. Right on.

[Kermit]

There is a reason why the Bible is called the "Holy Bible" and that is because it is so full of holes.

[Footy4Jesus]

Sounds like you have a pretty good idea what you think/believe will happen and are trying to use that to convince someone to suddenly believe.

In previous posts, you talked about being a thief, banging married women (no doubt helping break up a few marriages) and then the usual stuff you consider sins. Have you honestly made amends for all this?

For a person with a solid moral compass, that's a lot of burden to carry around.

If you've actually paid back everyone you've stolen from, and apologized to the husbands and kids (assuming some were mothers) etc, then I apologize and congratulate you. If not, is trying to convince a jew-hater or non believer how you feel bad for them, or pray for them the same to you?

There's a reason why so many incarcerated people find solace in religion. Making amends face to face is logistically impossible, but, just as religion offers one the ability to externalize blame, many religions offer the ability to externalize true penance and forgiveness too. Religion/Belief is a lot of things, and convenience is just one aspect that makes it appealing.

Muldoon, I cant help but notice that you continue to bring up my adulterous past and call me a scumbag for it. I'm not going to ask you, but I have a feeling that it is because it hits home for you in some way. I may be wrong but that is fine.. Im sure someone reading this has been in a similar situation or adulterous themselves. What I do want to ask is why you feel that it is something that shouldn't warrant forgiveness? Adultery will ruin families, I wont argue with you on that. But although you dont believe in God, you do believe in the institution of marriage. It is my belief and a biblical one, that marriage is an institution created by God. If it was not, then why does the concept of marriage exist across every culture and continent on this earth? Why is adultery looked upon as evil in every culture? And why does it cause so much destruction in a family and culture if there is no such thing as evil and satan?

Forgiveness can be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people. And it goes both ways. If youve done so much wrong in your life, hurt so many others, then it can be hard to believe that you deserve any kind of forgiveness for it. You can continue to keep beating yourself up for all the wrong that you have done but that wont get you anywhere. Well, the act of Jesus dying on the cross for us was given to us to relieve that burden. No matter how much wrong you have done, what kind of sin you hold on to, what kind of evil you have committed on others, he is there to forgive you. All you have to do is ask. You may think that yourself or others that have done wrong to you or others aren't deserving of that forgiveness. Yet God has given us the opportunity to let all of that go through Him. Have I sought out forgiveness from those that I have hurt? Yes! And because I am still a sinner although I follow Christ I continue to hurt people throughout this fallen life like anyone else. And although I do my best to correct my faults and ask for forgiveness from the people that I hurt, there is no guarantee that I will actually receive forgiveness from them. After all, we are all sinners, imperfect, and sometimes incapable of acting the way God intended us to. Therefore, I do not seek my forgiveness from mortal man to reassure my soul. I rely on God because he is the only one I can put my whole trust in.

If there is something that you cant let go of, something that really ticks you off that happened in the past, someone that really hurt you or someone you love, you gotta let it go man. If you never forgive them or even forgive yourself for the things you may have done, it will continue to eat you up inside until you do. Forgiveness can be difficult to initiate, but it will always reap great rewards going on in the future.

[Footy4Jesus]

There is a reason why the Bible is called the "Holy Bible" and that is because it is so full of holes.

Oooh your funny. I always wondered why I never laughed at the muppets. Its because your jokes suck.

[Footy4Jesus]

I'm posting this because it is so powerful of a message. I can only speak from what I know of Him, and that is little compared to the omniscient power of God. I always read the bible to my daughter before I put her to bed. And I usually just open the bible up to whatever page I may land on. You can pass it off as coincidence or irrelevant. I don't believe in coincidences. Everything in life has a divine purpose. It speaks to me greatly in such a time, but I firmly believe I found this page for somebody out there that may stumble upon this thread. These are only some of the words that Jesus spoke :

Luke 6:20-49

The Beatitudes

20 Then He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said:
“Blessed are you poor,
For yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
For you shall be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now,
For you shall laugh.
22 Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man’s sake.
23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven,
For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.

Jesus Pronounces Woes

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
For you have received your consolation.
25 Woe to you who are full,
For you shall hunger.
Woe to you who laugh now,
For you shall mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you[a] when all[b] men speak well of you,
For so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Love Your Enemies

27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
Do Not Judge

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
39 And He spoke a parable to them: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher. 41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.
A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit

43 “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart[c] brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Build on the Rock

46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.[d] 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell.[e] And the ruin of that house was great.”




It is Sunday morning here in the U.S. and other parts of the world. I pray that somebody, anybody, will decide to get up and go to church. Take your kids. Drag your spouse along if you have one. I pray that somebody out there will receive Christ as their savior and we can meet someday in heaven.

[rkelly110]

I have bed head, I'll watch Joel Olsten instead.

[SamDiamond]

However, I believe that the catholic institution has in many ways hurt Christianity. There are many things with Catholicism that are entirely un-biblical. Calling anyone else but God your father, worshiping Mary, worshiping so-called saints when it is clearly stated in scripture that all believers are saints, penance, purgatory, the hierarchy of the church, having a man (the pope) in between you and God, relics worshiped like idols, religious rituals, having the bible read to you in latin where nobody can understand so it serves no purpose.. I could go on but none of these things have a foundation in scripture. The catholic institution does many great things for society as in spreading the word of Jesus and doing charitable deeds far exceeding other groups, but when it comes to the Bible they cannot solely hold a claim to it.

I'm not even catholic and I know what you posted is wrong.

I attended a catholic university for graduate school.

Catholics do not "worship" Mary, the Pope does not stand between them and God, they do not worship Saints.

Let me ask you this.

Take the catholic "Hail Mary" prayer---The words, "Holy Mary, mother of God, PRAY FOR US"--is that any different than you asking your fellow worshipers to pray for you?

What makes you think catholics worship saints and mary?

The fact that you missed SO BADLY on this one-- makes me are regurgitating what someone in your bible class told you about catholicism.

[grease lightnin]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."*-Bertrand Russell*

[PhillyFlyers]

Some atheists seem to corner themselves in by not allowing the evidence to answer the questions.

To even consider floating particles evolved into even single cell organisms much less complex humanoid life is asinine and insults basic intelligence.

To not be able to prove that human life existed on earth except very very recently because it destroys the evolution argument is akin to the previous point. I can go in my back yard and find a 5 million year old sea shell fossil. We have fossil prove of dinosaurs but none of any humans.

Atheists are sometimes worse than religious folks. I say drop the entrenched cult stuff and look at the evidence.

Two things here.

First, if you found a fossil sheel in your backyard, how do you, with certainty, it's age? You can't. You would need to use a full-proof dating method. Right now, none exist. To say that fossil shell is 5 million years old is simply a guess.

I could take a look at the same shell and tell you it's less than a hundred years old. Prove me wrong.

Secondly, animals like dinosaurs existing before Man proves the Biblical account. Animals were made first, then Man, God's crowning achievement, came later.

Is this mere coincidence that the fossil record proves the Biblical account correct?

I think not.

[PhillyFlyers]

There isn't a debate, not in the sense that Nye and Ham had one.

This is not that incredible to think about. Most people believe in evolution, even very devout Christians. I know many of them. It's not even hard to reconcile.

The difference lies in what created the big bang.

Athiest or people who don't believe in the existence of god go with Hawking's theory.
Those who believe in god, usually say that god created the big bang (or something similar to this).

Ham is a moron, and only the dumbest of the dumb argue otherwise.

So, stop pretending like there is some huge gap between the two beliefs. Both theories, God v. Hawing theory require a great amount of "faith".

You can't believe in both. Either we were created by God or we came from animals.

You can't believe in both at the same time as it is contradictory.

[dante1]

There isn't a debate, not in the sense that Nye and Ham had one.

This is not that incredible to think about. Most people believe in evolution, even very devout Christians. I know many of them. It's not even hard to reconcile.

The difference lies in what created the big bang.

Athiest or people who don't believe in the existence of god go with Hawking's theory.
Those who believe in god, usually say that god created the big bang (or something similar to this).

Ham is a moron, and only the dumbest of the dumb argue otherwise.

So, stop pretending like there is some huge gap between the two beliefs. Both theories, God v. Hawing theory require a great amount of "faith".

Agreed this isn't really a debate any longer much like global climate change. And prior to recent scientific thought the argument was primarily what created the big bang. Creationists had a talking point when they used this argument. However, science has recently theorized that nothing created the big bang. S Hawkins presented an entire argument making that exact case. It simply happened. I certainly don't have the scientific credentials to understand or explain it but he does. Whenever I feel lacking in a certain discipline I rely on the experts.

[PhillyFlyers]

This is so false. The Catholic Church makes it clear that you can believe in both Creation and evolution. If you do, the distinction is that when the first humans evolved, it was where the distinct human soul came into being. I believe that God is behind everything in this universe and that evolution does not contradict anything.

Again, this is false. Saying that an ape was one day an ape, and then, for some reason, God just decided to throw a soul into it and make it human is an insult. To both God and intelligence.

First, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that an animal, any animal, in the distant past became Man. It didn't happen. Period.

Secondly, if evolutionists truly believe this, then in fact, they just admitted that the soul exists and that it was given to to Man by a Creator God....which proves the theory wrong! For how do you explain a soul?

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

[dante1]

Impossible to talk intelligently with most that believe in a soul and think there is no proof concerning evolution. It simply reflects not only an uneducated mind but also a mind that simply refuses to do the necessary research. Rifle jr is another one of those guys that simply searches the net for articles that agree with his opinions. I can find articles on the net that agree that zombies are real and vampires are walking the earth today. Oh and BTW, rifle jr believes in all that bs too, he buys into supernatural shit but denies science. Tell me how do you discuss anything with people like this. Lost cause. Simply forget it, much better results arguing with a slug

[PhillyFlyers]

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?!

How did a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organize themselves into the first living cell?

[dante1]

yes science answers it and much better than the superstitions in the bible. And since you addressed the issue and brought up the question why not research it yourself. why not make today the day you finally toss away all your preconceived notions and do some real unbiased research. Go ahead, take the time to research this exact question.

[SamDiamond]

Again, this is false. Saying that an ape was one day an ape, and then, for some reason, God just decided to throw a soul into it and make it human is an insult. To both God and intelligence.

First, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that an animal, any animal, in the distant past became Man. It didn't happen. Period.

Secondly, if evolutionists truly believe this, then in fact, they just admitted that the soul exists and that it was given to to Man by a Creator God....which proves the theory wrong! For how do you explain a soul?

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

So Philly--- are you saying you don't agree with the official position of the Catholic Church?

It's a yes or no.

The Vatican has made it clear-- they see no conflict between evolution and god.

[dante1]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."*-Bertrand Russell*

One of my favorite quotes.

[swordsandtequila]

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?!

How did a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organize themselves into the first living cell?

It's Sunday morning, shouldn't you be in church instead of trolling on a gambling forum? Being the devout christian and all. Jeezus.

[SamDiamond]

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?!

How did a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organize themselves into the first living cell?

Here you go Philly.

An entire lecture to answer your question.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/06/generative-chemistry-origins-of-life

Here's more..

http://www.biofaction.com/synth-ethic/?p=61

There are literally thousands of research papers that demonstrate amino acids- the building blocks of RNA an DNA can be formed from organic precursors.

If you want another 50 papers, let me know. I'll post them all.

[PhillyFlyers]

Here you go Philly.

An entire lecture to answer your question.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/06/generative-chemistry-origins-of-life

Here's more..

http://www.biofaction.com/synth-ethic/?p=61

There are literally thousands of research papers that demonstrate amino acids- the building blocks of RNA an DNA can be formed from organic precursors.

If you want another 50 papers, let me know. I'll post them all.

This doesn't answer the question, Sam. These guys will never be able to take lifeless chemicals and produce a living cell.

In fact, one of the researchers admits it's still a mystery.

"Life started from a chaotic state, so how to organise things? Having chemical reactions that reinforce themselves is one way of doing this. But these types of reactions in reality are very difficult to find," says Hancyzc.

[PhillyFlyers]

So Philly--- are you saying you don't agree with the official position of the Catholic Church?

It's a yes or no.

The Vatican has made it clear-- they see no conflict between evolution and god.

Well, that's not really the official position as I see it. The Church has taught against evolution since the theory was first started and I know because I had 16 years of Catholic teaching. It's only very recently they took that position. It was never it's position before.

I hold on to the original teachings that were taught to me.

[PhillyFlyers]

yes science answers it and much better than the superstitions in the bible. And since you addressed the issue and brought up the question why not research it yourself. why not make today the day you finally toss away all your preconceived notions and do some real unbiased research. Go ahead, take the time to research this exact question.

Science doesn't answer it. If it does then give the definitive answer. I can't wait to hear this.

[Andy117]

Two things here.

First, if you found a fossil sheel in your backyard, how do you, with certainty, it's age? You can't. You would need to use a full-proof dating method. Right now, none exist. To say that fossil shell is 5 million years old is simply a guess.

I could take a look at the same shell and tell you it's less than a hundred years old. Prove me wrong.

Secondly, animals like dinosaurs existing before Man proves the Biblical account. Animals were made first, then Man, God's crowning achievement, came later.

Is this mere coincidence that the fossil record proves the Biblical account correct?

I think not.

The Biblical account has sea and air animals created on day 5 and land animals and humans on day 6. That isn't proof of anything.

[PhillyFlyers]

The Biblical account has sea and air animals created on day 5 and land animals and humans on day 6. That isn't proof of anything.

Sure it does.

The sea animals were created first, then land animals and of the land animals, Man was last and then got to name the animals.

The fossil record supports this, precisely.

[SharkAA]

Sure it does.

The sea animals were created first, then land animals and of the land animals, Man was last and then got to name the animals.

The fossil record supports this, precisely.

Not sure if serious... creationism is as real as Harry Potter. But ok, that's your opinion, you probably still believe, Santa Claus actually exists.

[PhillyFlyers]

Not sure if serious... creationism is as real as Harry Potter. But ok, that's your opinion, you probably still believe, Santa Claus actually exists.

Well, I respect your opinion, but your criticizing Creationism and yet, no credible alternative theory has been produced to be able to counter it.

[SharkAA]

Well, I respect your opinion, but your criticizing Creationism and yet, no credible alternative theory has been produced to be able to counter it.

Point is, neither creationism nor evolution can't fully explain it. There are so much holes in both theories and I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the fact is, that we'll never know exactly what happened.

[dante1]

Not sure if serious... creationism is as real as Harry Potter. But ok, that's your opinion, you probably still believe, Santa Claus actually exists.

Oh yes, the list of craziness that he believes is staggering starting with almost all paranormal crap. Add to that the fact that he turns his back on science and you have well you have philly. lol

He reminds me of a student I had many years ago, right before class began he was lecturing to his buddies how he is a true vampire and he brought it to my attention. I said joe you are not a vampire well that went back and forth for 20 seconds until he replied Mr S I am a vampire I drink blood to which I replied that doesn't make you a vampire just a tad bit crazy. That ended that discussion. Same with rifle jr, just a tad bit crazy.

[CrimsonQueen]

CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?!

How did a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organize themselves into the first living cell?

You claim you want a debate, but immediately jump to a false dichotomy. "If you can't prove how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves, then therefore: God must exist." You realize there were MANY things that no one could "prove" or knew how they happened until VERY recently? Science has been making leaps and bounds in the last decade. There are still things we still don't know, but that doesn't mean the answer is automatically: God did it.

If you showed an iPod to someone 100 years ago (via a time machine, which, admittedly would be way more impressive than the iPod, but I digress), they would immediately use it as proof that god exists.

As Sam pointed out there are many scientists studying amino acids, and one day, maybe not for another 100 years or maybe next week, they will demonstrate just how it happened. Then what? You won't say, oh ok, then obviously there is no god. You'll just move on to the next as-of-yet-unproven piece of "evidence" that god must exist since you can't figure out how it was done.

[pronk]

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:

(Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /Earthtech.org

https://www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)