Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (19680)	1/17/2012 11:58:20 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 69300

New Scientist editors admit: Recent research has shot no-big bang cosmology “full of holes” January 15, 2012 Posted by News under In “The Genesis problem” (13 January 2012), New Scientist’s editors acknowledge the key problem with modern cosmology: The big bang is now part of the furniture of modern cosmology, but Hoyle’s unease has not gone away. Many physicists have been fighting a rearguard action against it for decades, largely because of its theological overtones. If you have an instant of creation, don’t you need a creator? Cosmologists thought they had a workaround. Over the years, they have tried on several different models of the universe that dodge the need for a beginning while still requiring a big bang. But recent research has shot them full of holes (see “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event”). It now seems certain that the universe did have a beginning. Now, if logic prevailed, the idea that the universe might also have a creator would be on the table for discussion. But don’t expect logic to prevail. Brace yourself for many more weird and wonderful tales, once this bout of cold logic wears off. That’s the funny part: We used to get “amazing miracle” stuff from religion. Now not so much. Who can compete with recent cosmologies for parades of unbelievables? See also: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Also: Vilenkin used to be a multiverse proponent, first class. uncommondescent.com