Ja, the Big Bust wasn't a coherent article. :) Although all the others demonstrated the exact same mindset, only made more scientific looking. But it really isn't. All they are doing is providing a weaker alternative to the big bang. The article about the lumps, for example, (which would easily explain the grouping of galaxies) just said "Maybe the lumps came from some other source." (no, this is not a quote. When I'm directly quoting I usually specify.) This is the same problem with the light from other galaxies being eons old. "Maybe there's an unknown principle out there that slowed light down. Maybe they're not as far away as we think. Maybe our instruments are inaccurate." (no, this is not a direct quote.)

That's not good enough. If you want to play devil's advocate with science you have to be prepared to present an equally rigorous or more rigorous alternative. When a theory seems to describe something well, incomplete as it may be, wailing "DOES NOT!" does not qualify as valid dissent. That seems to be ICR's primary tactic. "Science is not omniscient and perfect, so the Bible must be." (no, this is not a direct quote.)

• ICR - kc2gwx - May 27, 2002 - 21:32 UTC
  • Nonsense - stormcrow - May 27, 2002 - 23:51 UTC
    • Tsk-tsk. - kc2gwx - May 28, 2002 - 00:31 UTC
      • Not in cosmology - harvey1 - May 28, 2002 - 12:31 UTC
      • Yes sir - darwinpoodle - May 28, 2002 - 12:42 UTC
        • I know - kc2gwx - May 28, 2002 - 14:50 UTC
          • Sammy - darwinpoodle - May 28, 2002 - 15:05 UTC
            • Boy was that taken out of context! - kc2gwx - May 28, 2002 - 17:14 UTC
              • Maybe - darwinpoodle - May 28, 2002 - 17:28 UTC
                • Is God an Alien? Naw! - kc2gwx - May 29, 2002 - 00:39 UTC