Cite just ONE 'lame' statement and we'll begin a debate
1. Since you're new, I will assume that you don't know that conjecture and accusations without specific examples and empirical evidence are not allowed:
See the above posting: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730388/
"Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument."
2. Please cite just ONE inaccurate statement that you are alluding to, then use a quote and reference using empirical evidence contradicting it. Then, we will begin a debate.
3. Teaching an unscientific theory (evolution) and allowing it to hinder and corrupt scientific research just because there is no other explaination is NOT how 'science' works. Go to:
The 'observable' scientific phenomenon in which light is created from sound:
“First discovered in the 1930s as a byproduct of early work on sonar, the phenomenon is defined as the generation of light energy from sound waves.”
“How can sound be transformed into a brief flash of light? Recent experiments have provided new insights into this remarkable phenomenon, but its cause is not yet fully understood.”
“Sonoluminescence: the star in a jar” by Seth Putterman, Physics World, May 1998.
Since there is NO scientific theory explaning sonoluminescence, we suggest you make one up, call it 'scientific' and then teach it as a fact, just like the utterly unscientific theory of evolution.
4. For a theory that fits better and is clearly more scientific, go to:
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Not to put too light a point on it, but your article on the big bang theory is kind of retarded and is worse than your average wikipedia article on accuracy.
I'm curious, however, for all the criticisms of the leading theory of how the universe was formed, do you have a theory that better fits the observable evidence?