Hi Marsha, The big bang theory has some problems with it. I think the whole idea is based on our infatuation with evolution. Because we think we can explain why animal bones look the way they do, we use it to explain everything. I have presented by view of evolution in previous posts.
Tom van Flandern has a good article on the issues with the big bang, showing how most data supports a static universe, at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp Don't believe everything those scientist tell you (I know you don't :-). Cheers, Willblake2 On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:24:20 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: At 11:13 AM 4/30/2009, you wrote: >Marsha: > >The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This >contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant >is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form >of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given >observed expansion rate > >Hi Marsha, > >Or that there are/ have been more 'bangs'.? > >Andre Bangettes? Do-lang-do-lang-do-lang... . _____________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... . . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
