Jump to content
The Education Forum

Here is how a tin foil hat person thinks

Steven Gaal

Recommended Posts

I am accused of being a tin foil hat person in this section of the ED Forum by a moderator (BURTON) ...my response this post below to show how I think.(GAAL)

In Search of The Origin – Beyond The Big Bang


by Moderator · August 22, 2014

The Intelligence – The SourceBelieve nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [unknown]
There is little debate left that the Universe erupted out into existence with a Big Bang. Since we have come to terms with the Big Bang, we can say that the Big Bang ‘happened’ at some ‘time-point‘ – skipping the argument about the time-space dimensions coming into existence as a result of the Big Bang itself, we have to further agree that the Universe had a beginning. Then, the obvious question one may ask; what happened before the beginning – what was ‘there‘ (where?)?
One way to answer this question, is to view the situation in terms of the ‘General Relativity Theory‘ – which, incidentally, was proposed a few centuries before the incarnation of Einstein, that speculates that the space and time are not ‘absolute‘, they are not a fixed background to events. In other words, space and tine both are dynamic dimensions that are shaped by Energy Fields in the universe.
Still, whether we take the theory of ‘time-space dimensions wrapping around itself‘ or the ‘space-time continuum‘ theory, we still have to deal with the matter of the existence of the initial energy, that we may call the ‘Virgin Mother Energy‘.
The Issue with The Laws of the Universe: Further, we recognize that the ‘Laws of Universe’ (Laws of Science) came into existence ‘right after‘ the Big Bang. But, then the question one will have to ask is; if it was the emerging Universe that formulated those Laws, or if it were those Laws that regulated the formation of the Universe?
If it were the universe that formulated and gave us the Laws of Science/Universe/Physics, then how the Universe was propagating and structuring itself in the absence of any regulating laws – it must have been a chaotic state in such a case, at least at the very early stage of the formation of the universe? But, we don’t observe any indication of a chaotic state during the period that the ‘time-space’ dimensions and the basic sub-atomic particles were being created. Instead, we observe a very strict ‘order’ – from the energy-field distribution to the orbital and spin of the sub-atomic particles and the galactic bodies. There is absolutely no margin of error any where – Even a slight irregularity; and we would not have been here to recount the state of the utter chaos that would have been all around.
And, if we accept that it were the precise ‘Laws of Science’ that governed the formation of the Universe from the ‘Moment Zero‘, then how those Law came into existence? Who created those laws, and what ‘Authority’ imposed them upon the entire Universe?
Despite many theories that, in essence, dance around the subject, we don’t have a satisfactory answer.
The Time – A Product of Motion: We recognize, purely scientifically speaking, that the entity, ‘time‘, is a product of ‘change‘ – change that we can define as ‘motion‘. Consider the scenario presented below:
You are at some place. It is mid-day. Sun is shining right above you. There is absolutely no movement – Sun remains where it is – Earth is not moving – there is absolutely no breeze – no air movement – No flutter of birds or insects – No sounds (air is not moving!) – Your watch/clock, electronics, gadgets, and all the electrical and radio signals are all dead – No change in light either – Every thing is in a state of absolute freeze. Will you notice any change in time . No, you won’t.
It will be even a tougher call to visualize a state where even ‘you’ were in a state of ‘absolute freeze’ – No heart-beats – No blood flow – No Brain activities – No cellular or neural activity either – Even the body’s sub-atomic particles were at full-stop. It would certainly be a state of ‘absolute freeze’. As you can see, in such a state, time will be absolutely ‘still’ – Nothing ‘ticks’. It will be a state of ‘No Time’.
We can, by thus visualizing, relate the time with the movement. We can relate to the strong theory that the Time came into play with the emergence of the Universe – The unleashing of the Energy that brought every thing into ‘motion’. Through deductive reasoning, we can also accept that the ‘time’, therefore, is not a fixed entity or dimension – since it is a product of ‘movement’, or, rather, speed, time will be expected to fluctuate along with the change in speed – It means that the scale, or the magnitude, of time will not be the same in all reference frames that operate at different relative speeds. The time is, therefore, a dimension whose unit is in reference (relative) to a specific frame.
State of Continuum or Abrupt Emergence: Physicists have many theories, some of them completely contradicting the others, that run form the Universe being in a state of ‘Continuum‘ – without a beginning, and without an end, to the abrupt Emergence of ‘The Energy‘, from a state of ‘Absolute Void‘, with a Big Bang, that brought the Universe into existence.
The ‘Continuum‘ or the ‘Loop‘ theory’s big flaw is that it simply doesn’t fit in a moving, rotating, and dynamic – almost a ‘living’- universe that we are living in – we are in a state of constant ‘change’. It is not a ‘Time-Loop‘, neither it is a state of ‘Continuum‘.
With the ‘Abrupt Emergence‘ theory, we have even bigger problems. Accepting the existence of an immense amount of Energy – far beyond our comprehension, from a state of complete ‘void‘, and, in its act of ‘abruptly leashing‘ out with a Big Bang, is in itself full of more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.
Further, to sell this theory, we will have to concoct more theories to justify the ‘Energy’ being there in a state of ‘nowhere’.
Defining and Understanding The Energy: When it comes to dealing with the energy, the problem is that we cannot even have a grip on this ‘Energy’ thing. What really is the ‘energy’ ?
Even though we freely use the word energy in our every day life, the fact is that we simply cannot describe or define it. We know that from the simplest movement of the tiniest of the particles to the heat exchange, and from decay to transformation of matter – it is all about the energy. Energy is all around us. We – our bodies, are made of energy. In fact, we are, in essence, energy? But, what that really means?
We understand that all matter, including our body, is made of atoms. Atoms themselves are formed by the assembly of the basic sub-atomic particles – which are kept confined and hold together in orbit by force-fields within the atomic structure. These basic particles are formed by the distinct alignments of the unit (quantum) energy packets. In turn, these unit energy packets themselves are composed of the ‘Energy Strings‘ that were propagated by the Supper Strings of The Virgin Mother Energy that were erupted out at the Big Bang – as for as we are able to describe, these strings are the ultimate ‘energy’,
These ‘tiniest‘ of the strings of the energy are the ultimate building blocks of every particle (think of light, heat, and electricity), and of every thing that exists in this Universe. And, these strings of energy are in a state of constant motion and ‘Spin‘.
A point to note is that; it is that ‘spin of the strings of energy‘ that bestows upon matter its ‘structural integrity‘ – Any disruption or irregularity in their spin order, and the things, including the living things, will be in a state of continuous deformation and transformation – No life form can exist in such a state.
But, returning back to the ‘basic quantum particle‘ and ‘energy strings‘, it seems that what we have been describing is either some ‘particles or some ‘strings’, and their respective interactions and motions – The point to focus is; what is causing these particles and strings to move, and what caused them to be formed in the first place?
In essence, what we are observing and describing is the ‘effect’ of the Energy, not the ‘energy’ itself!
A Universe of Order and Precision: We observe a very high degree of precision and order in the ‘movement’ and formation of these strings of ‘energy’ – No perpetual ‘deformities’ are observed. The same precision and orders is also reflected in the entire Universe.
With the observation of such an order and precision in this Universe of unfathomable vastness, along with those very fundamental unanswered questions about the Emergence /Existence of the Universe, we find ourselves stuck with some very pointed questions:
How any thing can exist in, or emerge from an Absolute Void – a state of absolute ‘nothingness‘? How is it possible for an enormous Energy (the Virgin Mother Energy) to exist, in a state of ‘absolute void, and to emerge to provide the ‘energy’ for the Big Bang – and exist where (nowhere?)?
And, to be a bit blunt, how can we define a state of ‘absolute singularity’? Is not it another of our theories of ‘convenience’ – to make believe the unbelievable?
What is the probability of The Energy to self-propagate, and transform itself into this observable Universe, and, also, manage to maintain a strict order?
Further, is it feasible for an uncontrolled energy to erupt out in an uncontrolled (absence of any laws) manner, and be ‘able‘ to produce the ‘Super Strings of Energy‘ that propagated the highly defined time-space-dimensions, and to form the basic energy packets to align and couple with each other with absolute precision to bring into existence this vast Galactic Universe, which has been able to hold its order for billions of years?
And, A Matter of Probability: In our sophisticated design works, form chip design to network processing, and from Nuclear Power Plants to Spaceship design, we rely upon the ‘statistical probability’ – This powerful mathematical tool provides us with the desired margin of reliability that helps us to design and produce sufficiently reliable products.
To ensure the margin of accuracy and reliability, we will further investigate our ‘universal’ affairs with the probabilistic point of view. We have to evaluate if a given theory has an acceptable probability of ‘success’. To proceed with:
What is the probability of the orderly formation of the atomic structure of the matter to appear from an uncontrolled, undefined and unplanned eruption? What is the probability of such an amazingly orderly evolution of life, that we observe on this earth, emerging from a state of chaotic eruption?
What is the probability of discovering a perfect and sequential order in the DNA structure of all the biological and botanical life forms that evolved out of an abrupt explosion of energy?
When we combine together the probabilities of events of various classes and the subclasses, whose lists just keep on going on and on, we recognize that the probability of these events occurring together reaches close to zero pretty fast. Purely mathematically speaking, there is, in practical terms, ‘zero probability‘ of this Universe coming into existence and maintaining its relative integrity from an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unregulated eruption.
Even if we could, somehow, provide for the existence of the Virgin Mother Energy of the Big Bang in a void, the Emerging ‘universe’ from such a chaotic event would be a chaotic “something” that would be in a state of perpetual ‘reformation and deformation’.
The Need for Precision and Accuracy in Systems of Very Large Scale: We know it intuitively that maintaining order at very small scale system is a simple matter. The process of managing the order becomes more complex as the system does scale up – With a very large system, we are looking at a very complex and elaborate operation to maintain the order – the tolerance for errors declines steeply.
When we consider the universe as whole, we are looking at an enormously Large System – A system too large and too complex for our mental comfort. In order to visualize and comprehend the enormity of this universe, we will take an informative tour of our Galactic Universe.
We will use the speed of light as the unit of measurement to simplify the presentation of the distances and the sizes. Light travels 186,000 miles or 300,000 km per second – The median distance from Earth to Sun is 150,000,000 km (93 million miles) – light travels from Sun to Earth in just 8 minutes and 19 seconds.
Our Earth is one of the ten planets of the star Sun. Star Sun is one of approximately 200-billion stars of The Milky Way Galaxy. The average distance between these stars is 31 Trillion kilometer. Which is 206,264 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. All the stars that we see in the sky are in the part of the Milky Way Galactic disk that is close to our star, The Sun.
The nearest known star to the Sun is 4.23 light-years (41 trillion km, or 25.3 trillion mi) away. In terms of interstellar travel, a spacecraft, moving at 171,000,000 kilometer per hour, would achieve the travel in several tens of thousands of years. A journey to the nearest star would take 80,000 years – Provided, of course, we could solves the problem of energy/fuel for the propulsion of the spaceship in the first place.
Our‘ Milky Way is just one of the 100-200 billion of Galaxies in the Universe. The nearest spiral galaxy to our Milky Way is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is roughly 2.54 million light-years away from our Milky Way. As of the present date, the most distant observed galaxy is some 13.2 billion light-years away, which is 5000 times more distance than the distance to Andromeda Galaxy.
The vastness, the complexity, and the order of this universe is simply mind-numbing. The Universe is certainly a system of enormously large proportions – It is a system far above and beyond our mental capabilities for visualization.
Further to add to the complexity of the matter, this very vast universe is made of the tiniest of the ‘particles’.
Very strict precision and the abidance to unbreakable and strict rules have to be the absolute prerequisites for the orderly formation and continuation of this very vast Universe.
Deductive Reasoning and Logic: As we reviewed, there are quite a few theories speculating on the subject of the emergence of the Universe; some points to its emergence from a state of Absolute Singularity, while others suggest a state of ‘Continuum’ or ‘Tile-Loop’. On the subject of the Laws of Universe/Science, the two possibilities are considered; 1). the Laws of Science formulated the Universe, or 2). the Laws of Science emerged from the propagation of Universe itself.
Both of these theories have their respective week points. It is difficult to swallow the idea of the emergence of an Energy of enormous magnitude from a state of ‘Absolute Singularity’. And, the state of ‘Continuum’ or Time-Loop’ – No way; nothing is observed to be is such a state in the universe – it is a universe of continuous Change, not continuum.
As for the argument; ‘The Laws forming the Universe’ vs. ‘The universe forming The Laws’ – it is more like the proverbial ‘chicken-and-egg’ debate.
In the absence of any factual evidence or Laws to guide us, a more logical approach may be to apply the tools of ‘logical and deductive reasoning’ to evaluate and analyses the matter.
We can begin with the facts that are scientifically plausible and a common domain to all the prevalent theories:
1- The Big Bang was the ‘beginning point’.
2- The Big Bang was the eruption of The Mother Energy.
3- The Mother Energy provided for the formation of all that exist in the universe, and
4- The Time Dimension itself is a creation of the Energy.
We can further incorporate three more postulates by extrapolation, giving us:
1. The Existence of The Virgin Mother Energy ‘prior’ to the Big Bang event.
2. The Time, as we perceive, coming into play due to the Emergence of the Universe, and
3. The presence of the Laws of Universe – to ensure the precision and order in the Universe.
We can now analyze the various aspect and components of the issue at hand from a logical perspective:
Dealing with the Energy – A Logical Propagation: As we have been deliberating, the energy is something more and beyond what we describe as the quantum strings/packets. It is, rather than a quantitative entity, more like a qualitative ‘ thing’. It is ‘something’ that brings those ‘quantum stings’ into existence and make them ‘move’ and ‘interact’ in a certain way.
It is, therefore, quite probable, and within the realm of reason, that the Energy is a qualitative entity that created the quantum particles of the matter, and propagated the universe. In such a scenario, the Energy must be occupying the entire ‘container’ shell of the Universe, and keeping in motion the entire system – from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the Galactic clusters of the universe.
Here, we are slightly modifying the ‘matter and energy’ theory, and stating that the matter is surely formed by the energy, but, in itself, it is not the energy. With the perspective of our universe, the Energy of this universe has a ‘qualitative magnitude’ that is in proportion and in tune with the dimensions of the Universe that it created.
In other dimensions – different than those of our own universe, we may be dealing with The Energy that is of a different ‘magnitude’, and has the ‘qualities’ and ‘properties’ that differ from those that are pertinent to the energy of our universe.
By the extrapolation of the logical reasoning process further, it can be deduced that there may exist an Energy of a different ‘qualitative nature’ and of a much higher order of magnitude. The Energy of the higher order may create its own ‘Universe’, and its own ‘container shell’ for that ‘Universe’ – For the convenience sake, we can dub that higher order energy the ‘Superior Energy’. By virtue of its higher order, the Superior Energy will have access and dominance over the domain of the inferior energy – While, The inferior energy cannot have access into the domain of the Superior Energy.
Working with The Time: As for as ‘our’ universe is concerned, the physicists are (almost) in agreement that the Time started with the emergence of the universe – in other words, the Time-dimension, along with the Space-dimension, was the creation of the Energy-Field of the Super Strings of the Mother Energy. Time can also be considered a product of motion or ‘Change’.

In a state of no motion/speed, and no change, there will be NO time dimension – it will be a state of ‘is’. A constant and continuous state – whatever is, ‘is’.
The Laws of the Universe, And The Enforcement: The notion of the universe creating the Laws of the Universe (Laws of Science) as it was self propagating, doesn’t fit with the logic of deductive reasoning – it is simply counter-intuitive. We can accept the logical conclusion that ‘Those Laws‘ didn’t exist in the absence of the universe, as the Laws were associated with the universe itself that was not there before its own ‘emergence’.
But, the logical reasoning process demands that the Laws of the Universe must have to come either prior to the emergence of the universe, or come along with it. It is simply a logical assumption. The precision and the order of the ‘Universal Affairs’ points to the presence of Laws, and a strict code of abidance in place from the moment of the birth of the universe.

Then, with this logical assumption, we will have to face the questions; What or Who devised and formulated those Laws, and how the mechanism of ‘law-abidance’ was imposed upon the entire universe?
Putting Together all the Logical Aspects: The presumption of the Laws of the Universe, either concurrent or prior to The Beginning, leads only to one logical conclusion; The presence of an Authority and Intelligence that must have to be there to establish those Laws of the Universe.
The Emergence of the Mother Energy, the Energy of the Big Bang, has only one logical explanation; The Energy either existed ‘somewhere’, or it was brought into existence for the purpose of bringing in motion the process of propagation of the Universe.

The logical assumption that there may exist a ‘timeless‘ dimension where there is NO Change – a state of being in a state of ‘is‘, along with the presumption that in such a dimension, there must exist a Superior Energy of higher order, points to two more logical deductions;
One, there must exist a ‘Universe’ or ‘World’ in a different dimension of ‘higher order’ in a state of ‘timelessness’ – No Change.
Two, there must exist in that ‘world’ a Superior Energy of a higher ‘magnitude’, and it was that Superior Energy that provided the Mother Energy for the propagation of our Universe.
And, by virtue of association, we can further deduce that ‘The Authority and Intelligence‘ must, as the giver and enforcer of ‘The Laws’, also be the ‘Source‘ and ‘Originator‘ of The Energy at all the levels and dimensions.
We can further deduce that the Laws of the Universe/Science must always be ‘true’ – these are the laws that we work hard to figure out and understand in our pursuit of knowledge. Our advancement in the field of science and technology depends upon our ability to decode and understand these ‘Laws of Universe’.
As for the naming convention, whether we chose to give a name to that ‘Intelligence and Authority’, makes little difference – the fact is that the same Intelligence and Authority also happened to be our ‘Creator’, too.

To get a better handle on the subject, it will be a good idea to also review the following articles in this series:

In Search of The Origin – I

In Search of The Origin – II

In Search of The Origin – III

In Search of The Origin – IV
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

  1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
  2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
  3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
  4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
  5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
  6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
  7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
  8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
  9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
  10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s happened to all of us. Some friend we had in elementary school or from an old job is all of a sudden making super weird comments on Facebook, or you’re in a bar and some random is trying to talk to you about fluoride for some reason. It’s not always immediately clear. Like, I realized one day that people saying crazy things were always following it up with “Do your own research!” and then finally discovered that it was sort of a “buzzphrase” for conspiracy theorists.

So, I thought I’d compile a list of the ways to know that someone in your life is starting to head down to tin foil hat alley.

1. Says insane thing (probably about chemtrails), and if you dispute, insists that you “Do your own research!”

This is one of the earliest signs of this type of crazy- and it’s also a major Glenn Beck-ism. I don’t know about you, but when I state a fact, I’m usually able to explain that fact. Especially if it’s something that may be controversial.

For instance, I do not so much believe that Joan Crawford beat her children. This is a thing that most people believe, because of the movie “Mommie Dearest”– however, when asked to explain, I don’t yell “Do your own research!” at people, I explain that all of the other children (save for Christopher) have refuted Christina’s book, as well as Crawford’s actual personal assistant, and Myrna Loy, and pretty much anyone else who was around during that time. I’m not saying I’m 100% definitely correct on this, but I err on the side of “probably not.”

Still, I don’t throw out something weird, get mad at people for not immediately taking me at my word, and then yell at them to do their own research. I mean, if they want to, that’s fine, but I’m usually quite able to support my arguments.

2. Freaking Flouride

UGH. These people and their fluoride. They love to make up crap about how the government puts fluoride in the water to keep us dumb and rebellion-resistant, like no one has ever seen “Dr. Strangelove” before or something. This is usually what they start with, probably because it sounds slightly more realistic than like, Lizard People.

It is not, however, true. At all. And yes, I’ve “done my research.” But don’t tell that to these people, especially if they are drunk at a bar, because they will, in fact, start screaming at you about it. Fluoride and the “vaccinations cause autism” thing are like the gateway drugs into tin-foil hat land.

3. Rejecting the tyranny of paragraph breaks

I swear to god, this is a thing. Whenever I see a comment that’s just a giant block of text with no breaks in it, I immediately just go “Welp, this one’s gonna be crazy” and I am pretty much always right. I don’t know why this is a thing, it just is.

4. When a person who you already kinda know isn’t too swift starts trying to pretend that they are some kind of intellectual who is totally going to school you on “how things are in the world.”

I hate to say this, but it’s true. It’s always the dumb ones. I feel bad, because like, they’re usually just coming across this stuff for the first time and it istotally blowing their minds. Like, I already know that some people think that the Rothschilds control the world and that there are Mason things on the dollar bill and also THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED or whatever. I’ve known for years, and I’ve already figured out that it’s all bullxxxx.

The more you read about history, the more you realize that people are so not getting it together to form a whole “New World Order” anytime soon. While there have been “conspiracy” type things throughout history (MKUltra, Tuskeegee, Project Paperclip, the COINTELPRO that actually existed and not the one people pretend still exists), they have been discovered fairly quickly. Because someone always has a big mouth.

5. They use the term term Big Pharma (or Big Anything) in all seriousness

There are about a 1000 problems with the pharmaceutical industry, for sure. However, when your friend is talking about “Big Pharma” they are not usually talking so much about overpriced cancer medication as they are like, vaccines causing autism and things like that. Also, sane people, when discussing the problems with the pharmaceutical industry just do not say things like “Big Pharma” because they like being taken seriously.

6. “Wake up, Sheeple!”

Being awake or being asleep is like, tin-foil hat code for being hep to all kinds of nonsense. Which is why on those weird personal ads for Infowars everyone was like “I’ve been awake for 4 months” and things. Sheeple is what they call people who do not go along with them.

See, usually, these people are kind of “new.” Like, they think that the information they are about to rock you with is A) Nothing you have ever heard before or B) Something you are going to buy wholesale, immediately, because their “evidence” is so vastly compelling. If you do not believe them, you are obviously a sheep of a person.

7. You lose!

Um, just some weird thing that they always seem to say when they think they’ve trumped your logic. Because they are very mature.

8. They say things about ZOG or “Zionist Occupied Government” or “The Rothschilds are controlling the world!” without understanding that that xxxx is pretty anti-Semitic

I have actually had to explain, on several occasions that, yes, the term “ZOG” is an anti-Semitic “the Jews are controlling the government!” thing. And also like, a Randy Weaver/ Ruby Ridge thing. I imagine they just hear the term a bunch around the Infowars type sites and think is a real thing? I don’t know. Like I said, not the swiftest bunch of humans.

At this point, however, it is probably best to start avoiding these people. Not much you can do to help. Next step after this is Lizard People, and I’m not sure there’s much hope after that.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. post # 1 unrefuted







2. Freaking Flouride

UGH. These people and their fluoride. They love to make up crap about how the government puts fluoride in the water to keep us dumb and rebellion-resistant, like no one has ever seen “Dr. Strangelove” before or something. This is usually what they start with, probably because it sounds slightly more realistic than like, Lizard People.

It is not, however, true. At all. And yes, I’ve “done my research.” But don’t tell that to these people, especially if they are drunk at a bar, because they will, in fact, start screaming at you about it. Fluoride and the “vaccinations cause autism” thing are like the gateway drugs into tin-foil hat land. // Burton

3. post of Monday, February 16, 2015 unrefuted


5. They use the term term Big Pharma (or Big Anything) in all seriousness

There are about a 1000 problems with the pharmaceutical industry, for sure. However, when your friend is talking about “Big Pharma” they are not usually talking so much about overpriced cancer medication as they are like, vaccines causing autism and things like that. Also, sane people, when discussing the problems with the pharmaceutical industry just do not say things like “Big Pharma” because they like being taken seriously. // BURTON




Monday, February 16, 2015


Are Your Medications Safe? -- The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials.
Agents of the Food and Drug Administration know better than anyone else just how bad scientific misbehavior can get. Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wildvideo. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—each of which catches a medical researcher in an unguarded moment, succumbing to the temptation to do things he knows he really shouldn’t be doing. Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.
That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn't get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.
Much of my research has to do with follies, foibles, and fraud in science, and I knew that the FDA wasn’t exactly bending over backward to correct the scientific record when its inspectors found problems during clinical trials. So as part of my investigative reporting class at New York University, my students and I set out to find out just how bad the problem was—and how much important information the FDA was keeping under wraps.
We didn’t have to search very hard to find FDA burying evidence of research misconduct. Just look at any documentrelated to an FDA inspection. As part of the new drug application process, or, more rarely, when the agency gets a tipoff of wrongdoing, the FDA sends a bunch of inspectors out to clinical sites to make sure that everything is done by the book. When there are problems, the FDA generates a lot of paperwork—what are called form 483s, Establishment Inspection Reports, and in the worst cases, what are known as Warning Letters. If you manage to get your hands on these documents, you’ll see that, most of the time, key portions are redacted: information that describes what drug the researcher was studying, the name of the study, and precisely how the misconduct affected the quality of the data are all blacked out. These redactions make it all but impossible to figure out which study is tainted. My students and I looked at FDA documents relating to roughly 600 clinical trials in which one of the researchers running the trial failed an FDA inspection. In only roughly 100 cases were we able to figure out which study, which drug, and which pharmaceutical company were involved. (We cracked a bunch of the redactions by cross-referencing the documents with clinical trials data, checking various other databases, and using carefully crafted Google searches.) For the other 500, the FDA was successfully able to shield the drugmaker (and the study sponsor) from public exposure.
It’s not just the public that’s in the dark. It’s researchers, too. And your doctor. As I describe in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, my students and I were able to track down some 78 scientific publications resulting from a tainted study—a clinical trial in which FDA inspectors found significant problems with the conduct of the trial, up to and including fraud. In only three cases did we find any hint in the peer-reviewed literature of problems found by the FDA inspection. The other publications were not retracted, corrected, or highlighted in any way. In other words, the FDA knows about dozens of scientific papers floating about whose data are questionable—and has said nothing, leaving physicians and medical researchers completely unaware. The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct in a clinical trial.
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homeopathy Plus “misleading and deceptive” on whooping cough vaccine


The Federal Court of Australia has found that Homeopathy Plus! Australia P/L and Fran Sheffield, who runs the organisation, “engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or was likely to mislead and deceive” when it declared on its website that the currently available vaccine against whooping cough was unreliable and ineffective.

In a judgement handed down on December 22, the Court found that, in contrast to a series of articles published on the site, “in fact, the [whooping cough] vaccine is effective in treating a significant majority of people who are exposed to the whooping cough infection”.

The judgement also found that Homeopathy Plus and Sheffield made “false or misleading representations that the homeopathic treatments are of a particular standard or quality”, in contravention of Australian Consumer Law.

The case was brought against Homeopathy Plus and Sheffield by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Sheffield won the Australian Skeptics Bent Spoon in 2012 for the same claims as were the subject of the Federal Court decision.

Sheffield, who originated a petition to the UN to use homeopathy in the Liberian Ebola outbreak, has previously made claims that homeopathy can treat domestic abuse behaviour.

The court decision adds: “There is no reasonable basis, in the sense of an adequate foundation, in medical science to enable the [Respondents] to state that homeopathic treatments are safe and effective as an alternative to the [vaccine publicly available in Australia] for the prevention of whooping cough.

“The [publicly available vaccine] is the only treatment currently approved for the use and accepted by medical practitioners in Australia for the prevention of whooping cough.”

There was no immediate response by Sheffield or Homeopathy Plus, but in an earlier statement she had written in response to the case, which had been underway in various forms since 2012, that: “It is my firm belief that it had nothing to do with ‘deceptive and misleading information’ or ‘trade and commerce’ but was the culmination of an 8-year struggle by certain groups to remove information on homeoprophylaxis (homeopathy’s ability to protect against epidemic disease) from our website and newsletters and out of the public eye.”

The matter is now listed for directions on February 4, 2015, in order to set a timetable for any further evidence on the question of penalties and submissions. The ACCC says it is seeking injunctions and pecuniary penalties, in addition to the declarations already made by the Court.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

post # 1 unrefuted

Homeopathy bogus (BURTON)
Homeopathy bogus so ?? (GAAL)




>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ORGANIZED CRIME ////////////


Pharmaceutical companies have more power than ever, and the American people are paying the price—too often with our lives.

By now you have probably seen John Oliver’s comic take on the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on doctors’ prescribing habits. Media outlets from Mother Jones to the Wall Street Journal commented admiringly, and even the American Medical Association felt compelled to declare they were “committed to transparency” around drug company payments to doctors.

But satire will do very little to focus on the real problem if we’re distracted by the humor inherent in self-important doctors being bought off by a steak. What’s not funny is that America is the most medicated nation on earth, with some 70 percent of Americans taking prescription drugs—yet we have worse health outcomes than other industrialized countries. Part of the problem may be the drugs themselves. As Slate’s devastating expose on the fraud in clinical drug trials shows us: We don’t know much about the drugs we prescribe.

But as physicians, we have very little good information to go on. Even our most prestigious journals publish research based on falsified studies, according to Charles Seife, a journalism professor whose class spent a semester trying to figure out why the data don’t get corrected once research fraud comes to light. “As a result,” Seife writes, “nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses.”

If no one knows which data is bogus, we obviously have a big problem in conventional medicine. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so focused on marketing shenanigans, and more concerned about the original study data before something becomes standard of care. Standard of care, of course, is driven by “research” that is incorporated into academic guidelines and is the basis of customer demand.

Understanding consumer demand takes very little study—just turn on the TV. Every year pharmaceutical companies spend over $3 billion on direct-to-consumer ads. These ads work: a patient who requests a specific drug will get it most of the time. (We are, by the way, the only country besides New Zealand that allows this.) But the question of how something becomes part of a recommended guideline is less obvious—and has a lot to do with pharmaceutical money paid to academic physicians in research and consulting fees.

Many of these physicians “leaders” then get to influence prescribing practices—since researchers and consultants are, well, experts. Consider the 2004 Cholesterol guidelines that resulted in an explosion in the use of statin drugs—eight out of nine of the doctors who wrote those guidelines were in receipt of money from statin manufacturers. The Harvard psychiatrist credited with hyping the use of stimulant drugs for ADHD—that has resulted in nearly 15 percent of our youth being medicated—received $1.6 million from producers of stimulant drugs. Prestigious medical journals—the ones that often define medical guidelines—allow physicians consulting for pharmaceutical companies or paid medical writers to extol the virtues of the drugs they are selling.

“They behave in many ways like the mafia does, they corrupt everyone they can corrupt, they have bought every type of person, even including ministers of health in some countries.”

I hate to ruin the fun, but practicing physicians are influenced far more by guidelines, esteemed academic physicians, and opinion pieces in prestigious journals than we are by a deli platter and a smiling drug rep. We look to the world of academic medicine because, well, where else can we turn? Pharmaceutical companies know this and have worked hard to sway the leadership. Now the question comes up if we can trust the data that the leadership relies on. One wonders how deep the deception goes. In fact, the heavy influence of pharmaceutical dollars inspired the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, to conclude, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

That’s why so many practicing physicians and patients alike were relieved that Obamacare would force pharmaceutical companies to come clean about how much money they’re throwing at some doctors. Sure, it’s fun to ridicule a middle-aged doctor ogling the drug rep’s cleavage while stuffing pens in his pocket or wolfing down a falafel sandwich—but this guy isn’t really the problem and everybody knows it. While $90 million went to drug-company sponsored meals in 2013, according to the Open Payments database, at least $1.4 Billion went to research. If we can believe that doctors can be bought with a slice of pizza pie, then we cannot underrate the influence of research monies.

And by the way, that $1.4 billion is probably a fraction of what is spent on researchers. Obamacare allows a four-year delay in the reporting of research grants for reasons that really don’t make any sense. An explanation from Medscape does little to satisfy: “The thinking is that if there were public transparency, it might stifle companies from getting involved in very early research…. And that’s again to specifically protect that research space.”

Whether or not the research space needs protecting is a matter of debate. Certainly we have so much research that it’s impossible for a working physician to get through it—some 800,000 articles are published annually. In response, the Cochrane Collaboration was formed in the 1990s to perform systematic reviews of the literature. Dr. Peter Gotzsche, the Director of the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, has seen enough over the last two decades to sum up his findings in a book whose title says it all: Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare.

Company emails were released revealing that Merck employees planned to “neutralize” and “discredit” doctors who criticized the drug.

“Much of what the drug industry does fulfills the criteria for organized crime in US law,” Dr. Gotzsche said in a recent interview. “And they behave in many ways like the mafia does, they corrupt everyone they can corrupt, they have bought every type of person, even including ministers of health in some countries…The drug industry buys the professors first, then chiefs of departments, then other chief physicians and so on, they don’t buy junior doctors.”

Gotzsche isn’t the only one accusing pharmaceutical companies of wrongdoing beyond the marketing malfeasance they’re famous for. In Australia, during the Vioxx class action suit brought against Merck, company emails were released revealing that Merck employees planned to “neutralize” and “discredit” doctors who criticized the drug. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” a Merck employee wrote, according to The Australian. Apparently, uncooperative physicians were targeted to lose academic appointments and research funding for telling the truth about the negative side effects they observed.

This is troubling—but even more so in light of the fact that it’s now widely accepted that prescription drugs can be dangerous and over the years dozens have been recalled. “Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Our drugs kill around 200,000 people in America every year, and half of these people die while they do what their doctors told them—so they die because of the side-effects,” said Dr. Gotzsche in his recent interview. “The other half die because of errors—and it’s often the doctors that make the errors because any drug may come with 20, 30 or 40 warnings, contraindications, precautions…and then the patients die.”

This is a hard pill for any of us to swallow. We should be able to trust our doctors, who should in turn be able to trust “the science.” As amusing as Oliver’s “epic takedown” of doctors was, the trouble isn’t physicians prescribing a new drug because a drug rep brings us a platter of tacos, the problem is whether the drugs we have to choose from are truly safe and effective in the first place.

Of course pharmaceutical companies are here to stay—and on the whole that’s a good thing. But to prevent a power dynamic that may deny us fully accurate drug data, physicians, and patients need more transparency—not just about the money, but about the drugs we are putting in our bodies.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


Article posted Feb 27 2015, 3:56 PM


Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class Jeffrey Tucker
fcc-net-neutrality_wide-91cb48ed6e00c1eeA triumph of "free expression and democratic principles"? How stupid do they think we are?

It's been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission's decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a "Wild West" into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.

All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.

This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It's had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It's had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.

The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what's going on.

Here's what's really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world's most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.

What's being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That's a good comparison.

Let's back up and grasp the position of the large content providers. Here we see the obvious special interests at work. Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don't want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision. It's very clear how getting the government to make price discrimination illegal is in their interest. It means no threats to their business model.

By analogy, let's imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this "furniture neutrality" and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry.

But that leaves the question about why the opposition from the ISPs themselves (the truckers by analogy) would either be silent or quietly in favor of such a rule change. Here is where matters get complicated. After many years of experimentation in the provision of Internet services — times when we went from telephone dial-up to landlines to T1 connections to experimenting with 4G data coverage — the winner in the market (for now) has been the cable companies. Consumers prefer the speed and bandwidth over all existing options.

But what about the future? What kind of services are going to replace the cable services, which are by-and-large monopolies due to special privileges from states and localities? It's hard to know for sure but there are some impressive ideas out there. Costs are falling for all kinds of wireless and even distributed systems.

If you are a dominant player in the market — an incumbent firm like Comcast and Verizon — you really face two threats to your business model. You have to keep your existing consumer base onboard and you have to protect against upstarts seeking to poach consumers from you. A rule like net neutrality can raise the costs of doing business but there is a wonderful upside to this: your future potential competitors face the same costs. As an established player in the market, you are in a much better position to absorb higher costs than those barking at your heels. This means that you can slow down development, cool it on your investments in fiber optics, and generally rest on your laurels more.

But how can you sell such a nefarious plan? You get in good with the regulators. You support the idea in general, with some reservations, while tweaking the legislation in your favor. You know full well that this raises the costs to new competitors. When it passes, call it a vote for the "open internet" that will "preserve the right to communicate freely online."

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

So what are the costs to the rest of us? It means absolutely no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Watch your bills. I predict that it is not going to be pretty. It also means a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that will immediately follow the imposition of this rule. In other words, it will be like all government regulation: most of the costs will be unseen but the benefits will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

There is an additional threat to how to the FCC has reclassified the internet as a public utility. It means a blank check for government control across the board. Think of the medical marketplace, which is now entirely owned by a non competitive cartel of industry insiders. This is the future of the internet under net neutrality.

If you look at how all this shakes out, this is really no different from how most every other sector in life has come to be regulated by the state, from food to money to medicine to education. It always shakes out this way, with a sleepy public believing the propaganda, an elite group of insiders manipulating the regulations for their own benefits, a left-wing intelligentsia that is naive enough to believe platitudes about fairness, and a right wing that is mostly ignorant and for sale to the highest bidder.

No, I don't believe that this ruling means the end of times for the internet. But it does mean that progress going forward in the digital age will be slowed compared with what it would otherwise be. Future generations will laugh in bemusement: it was the dawn of a new age and yet they believed it could be controlled the same as all that came before. Fools.
Jeffrey Tucker is Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me (http://liberty.me/join), a subscription-based, action-focused social and publishing platform for the liberty minded. He is also distinguished fellow Foundation for Economic Education (http://fee.org), executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, research fellow Acton Institute, founder CryptoCurrency Conference, and author six books. He is available for speaking and interviews via



Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its important! the video below ...if only, if only the people I debate were...intellectually honest
tour de force
ˌto͝or də ˈfôrs/
noun: tour de force; plural noun: tours de force
  1. an impressive performance or achievement that has been accomplished or managed with great skill.
    "his novel is a tour de force"
    synonyms: triumph, masterpiece, achievement, success, masterful performance, magnum opus

Design in the Universe


Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Entire Oil Collapse Is All About Crushing Russian Control Over Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2015 11:45 -0400



Link to comment
Share on other sites

its important! the video below ...if only, if only the people I debate were...intellectually honest
tour de force
ˌto͝or də ˈfôrs/
noun: tour de force; plural noun: tours de force
  1. an impressive performance or achievement that has been accomplished or managed with great skill.
    "his novel is a tour de force"
    synonyms: triumph, masterpiece, achievement, success, masterful performance, magnum opus

Design in the Universe


This from a guy who admitted on this very forum that he always argues from fallacy?? LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Gaal, on 07 Mar 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:snapback.png

its important! the video below ...if only, if only the people I debate were...intellectually honest
tour de force
ˌto͝or də ˈfôrs/
noun: tour de force; plural noun: tours de force
  1. an impressive performance or achievement that has been accomplished or managed with great skill.
    "his novel is a tour de force"
    synonyms: triumph, masterpiece, achievement, success, masterful performance, magnum opus

Design in the Universe

This from a guy who admitted on this very forum that he always argues from fallacy?? LOL! // KNIGHT



}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} TO SUMMARIZE POSTS #1 and #10 are UNREFUTED AND REINFORCE EACH OTHER. TO REPEAT ...if only, if only the people I debate were...intellectually honest. //GAAL

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Secular Study: No Big Bang?

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Christians who believe the universe began billions of years ago often point to the Big Bang model to try and verify a creation-like beginning.1 But a new origin of the universe model offers an "everlasting universe" and dismisses the whole idea of a Big Bang.2

Genesis does not describe a Big Bang. Instead of a hot explosion, it presents a rather cold, watery origin. Instead of stars first, followed by Earth's emergence billions of years later, God made Earth first, then stars four days later. If the Big Bang really happened, then nobody told God about it. And if Scripture's history falls this far off base, then what other errors might it contain?

Despite the dangers that the Big Bang presents for the Bible—to say nothing of the baffling scientific quandaries it generates—some Christians continue to believe it and even use it to argue for creation. But this noble intention can have bad results.3 Lured by the prospect of illustrating how secular science incorporates a kind of beginning point for the universe that could merge with the concept of God, this particular argument pays the price of accepting a model with almost no resemblance to Genesis.

And how can anyone trust the books of the Bible that refer to the creation account if Genesis is almost completely wrong? After all, those books also teach us about Christ, the focal point of the Christian faith.

In the new model, published in Physics Letters B, researchers included quantum correction terms to the standard formula assumed in Big Bang cosmology. This time, the formula ended up describing a universe with no beginning and no end.

Why would scientists even think to challenge a long-held concept like the Big Bang unless they saw some deal-breaking weaknesses in it? Their paper lists some of the flaws they recognized, including "the smallness problem," "the coincidence problem," "the flatness problem," dark matter, and the inexplicable singularity from which the universe supposedly sprung.2,4

So, the second price Big Bang-promoting Christians will have to pay is swallowing all these problems, each of which refutes Big Bang cosmology. Without compromising either biblical history or observational science, Christians can simply believe and defend the exact words of Genesis.


  1. Geisler, N., and Turek, F. 2004. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 73-89.
  2. Ali, A.F., and Das, S. 2015. Cosmology from quantum potential. Physics Letters B. Volume 741(4): 276–279.
  3. Creation scientists have been warning Christians of this danger for years. See: Henry, J. F. Christian apologists should abandon the big bang. Journal of Creation. 23 (3): 103-109.
  4. Dr. Jake Hebert describes how inflation theory, a Big Bang add-on, failed to explain the flatness problem in: Hebert, J. 2012. Big Bang Explanations Fall Flat. Acts & Facts. 41 (11): 16.
  5. Hebert, J. 2013. The Ever-Changing Big Bang Story. Acts & Facts. 42 (1): 14.

Image credit: Copyright © 2006 NASA, ESA, and J. Maíz Apellániz. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on February 23, 2015.

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} TO SUMMARIZE POSTS #1 and #10 are UNREFUTED AND REINFORCE EACH OTHER. TO REPEAT ...if only, if only the people I debate were...intellectually honest. //GAAL

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Creationism seems to be close to your heart so if you like, we can start a separate thread devoted to it rather than have it mixed up with the "tin foil hat" thread discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...