Guess what?

 

The truth dont care what you think.

Never has.

never will.

Why some cosmologists found the Big Bang offensive

"Today, we speak of the Big Bang model of cosmology, but it was not always so. For two decades, the Big Bang model battled against the steady state model. This pitted a Universe with a beginning against an eternal Universe. In the absence of data, philosophical prejudice often drives research."

"In 1931, Lemaître suggested that the Universe started with the decay of a giant radioactive atom made mostly of neutrons. Although bizarre, his was the first model that used the cutting-edge physics of the time to propose a beginning of everything. It also inspired the real Big Bang model that would arrive two decades later."

"Belief in such an event as the beginning of everything, with all its religious connotations, was an idea that many found repugnant."

(Sux for them, believe that.

Facts are still repugnant to some?

And these people are considered scientist?)

"The combination of a general philosophical distaste for a universe with a beginning and Hubble’s conflicting age measurements led a trio of young British physicists to propose a completely different model for the Universe. In the so-called steady state model of cosmology, the Universe has overall always been the same, having no beginning or end in time. It was a universe of being, with no abrupt origin anywhere in the distant past. The motivations that led the British trio to propose the steady state model were rooted in an aversion to a creation event and to change. Although the model is long discredited, its brief life provides us with some important pointers to the development of physical cosmology."

(The important part here to remember is:

"The motivations that led the British trio to propose the steady state model were rooted in an aversion to a creation event and to change."

Because they are still doing it today, 

whether by:

the unscientific 

"Multiverse'

(If there are others? 

They were created by the uncreated creator in the same manner.

Or "Quantum cosmology"

They are all still trying to find a work around for the facts they dont like looking em right in the face, and that is 100% the truth.)

"At about the same time the steady state model was proposed in England, the brilliant Russian-American physicist George Gamow was considering what would happen to matter if the Universe in its infancy really was compacted into a small volume. He reasoned, correctly, that when you squeeze matter, the temperature and pressure increase, and the bonds that keep stuff together eventually break. In that case, early on, the stuff filling up space would be like a primordial soup of particles. Soon, Gamow would recruit two graduate students to calculate in detail what that meant for the history of the early Universe. The results became what we now call the Big Bang model of cosmology, Lemaître’s direct heir."

'Hoyle and his Cambridge colleagues were vocal opponents of this model. The battle between a universe of being (steady state) and a universe of becoming (Big Bang) had begun in earnest, only to end in the mid-1960s. As it should be in science, data had the last word."

(I'll go ahead and give it away:

Cosmic background radiation

1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson measure the temperature to be approximately 3 K. Robert Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson interpret this radiation as a signature of the Big Bang.[2]

"Temperature of the cosmic background radiation spectrum based on COBE data: uncorrected (top); corrected for the dipole term due to our peculiar velocity (middle); corrected additionally for contributions from our galaxy (bottom).

That along with:

Redshift

"Absorption lines in the visible spectrum of a supercluster of distant galaxies (right), as compared to absorption lines in the visible spectrum of the Sun (left). Arrows indicate redshift. Wavelength increases up towards the red and beyond (frequency decreases).

and:

The abundance of elements in the early universe

"The abundance of the lightest elements is well predicted by the standard cosmological model, since they were mostly produced shortly (i.e., within a few hundred seconds) after the Big Bang, in a process known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Heavier elements were mostly produced much later, inside of stars."

These three form the three pronged argument for the big bang having happened. The science says the universe had a creation event.

Nothing,

even  

after decades 

of very intelligent people trying

has ever shot it down,

no matter how much some dont like it, 

be they physicist or reverends.

My point is this:

If the big bang didn't show a creation event? That certain physicist so obviously dont like the theistic implications thereof?

Would they still be trying to manipulate ways around it after 70 years?

Or would they have accepted it as fact by now?

Your heart and mind already know the answer.

PS fundamentalist:

Meet:

Gerald Schroeder

One day in the beginning?

Is equal to a trillion days now.

Thats how six days in the beginning ends up with the universe being close to 14 billion years old now.

Space time is the most stretchable thing ever.

And the creation account is a poem.

A parable.

i suggest you find a way to deal with it...