Believe in the Big Bang? Cool, here’s your science degree.. June 26, 2012Posted by #4 in Everything but the kitchen sink, It's all one big lie.
Tags: Astronomy, Astrophysics, Big Bang, Cracker Jack, God, Quantum fluctuation, Quantum mechanics, random fluctuations, science
Apparently all it takes nowadays to earn a degree in Astrophysics and Astronomy is believing in the Big Bang. That and making absurd statements that have no basis in fact.
A recent article published by Fox News in their science section declares “The Big Bang didn’t need God to start the universe”. You can read it here.
Researchers have now determined that quantum mechanics, all by themselves, can create universes.
“In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.”
Did you catch that? Random fluctuations can create something from nothing. Who’d a thunk it?
You would think, in an article declaring that God wasn’t needed, in the beginning, that what would follow would be a whole list of why’s and how’s that these marvelous fluctuations are able to, not only exist where nothing else exists, but create matter and energy from nothing.
That’s what we get for thinking (something you cannot do and hope to earn a science degree, I guess).
What actually follows are some pretty amazingly stupid statements, as if stupid statements are now “in” and the facts are “out”.
“If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It’s not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it.”
“So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe,”
I don’t know about you, but if I had known I could get millions of dollars in research grants, and impressive degrees to hang on my walls just by making ridiculous statements – I would have been making ridiculous statements for years by now.
Reading this article gives one, perhaps, the same kind of experience one gets by opening a box of Cracker Jacks and discovering the toy is lame and there are not enough of those yummy peanuts in the mix. I hate that. The prize inside, when I was a kid, was really cool and there were plenty of peanuts. Not anymore.
I find it hard to believe that so much credit is given to these people. Whatever happened to empirical evidence, verifiable results, scientific method? Are those no longer required when making such authoritative declarations?
The whole article if full of make-believe, guess-work and evidently, drugs. There is not one statement made from observed phenomena or scientific method. It is all pure conjecture. It’s like the bald man with the horrible comb-over; everyone can see it for what it is except the bald man because he wants desperately to look like he has hair. Of course, now, in our politically correct culture, we can’t tell the bald man that he is, by the way, bald, and we also can’t tell these “scientists” they are morons. Because that would be insensitive and hateful. I guess we’ll have to let them continue to believe they are brilliant.
I won’t belabor the point anymore. I’ll leave you with a few paragraphs of logical thinking where this topic is concerned. I believe (but not certain) they are made by Professor Edgar Andrews of the University of London.
1) The laws of nature, you say, are the “inescapable consequences” of “completely random quantum fluctuations”. By what logic can inescapable consequences arise from random events? Random events can only lead to contingent consequences but to be “inescapable” the consequences cannot be contingent but must be determinate (necessary).
2) For the laws of nature to be a “consequence” of anything, the principle of causality must operate. Without causality there can be neither causes nor consequences. But you then tell us that back beyond the big bang the laws of causality break down. You really cannot have it both ways.
3) You say the big bang was “caused” by “random quantum fluctuations”. Quite apart from reinforcing my last point by invoking causality prior to the existence of the cosmos, you have to answer a different question … fluctuations in what? Before the big bang there existed neither matter, energy, space nor time, so by definition there could be no fluctuations in any of these entities. (If you claim there was something of a material nature “there” before the big bang, we are no longer talking about the ultimate origin of the universe).
3) Next comes another question. Are not quantum fluctuations themselves a manifestation of natural law (e.g. the laws of quantum mechanics)? How then could quantum fluctuations be the ultimate cause of natural law as you claim? Did the laws governing quantum fluctuation invent themselves? Not even Stephen Hawking believes that.”
Okay – I can’t just end with those quotes. I have to leave you with the really good stuff. Forget random fluctuations and quantum mechanics. They can’t explain the origin of our universe; they can only explain how the universe works. The real explanation is. . .
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Yes – finally something that make perfect sense.