The problems of big bang theory. What are they?

Oops.Ignoring the silly stuff, you neglected to explain the microwave background radiation.

No quote button. There use to be such a button, but posters often tended to quote entire back and forth exchanges and Percy deleted removed the button.Assuming that scientists are complete morons utterly unable to apply common sense as well as you is probably the wrong approach.Or, phrased another way, saying 'It does not make sense to Maartenn100' is not a convincing attack.

You are wrong. Nobody is saying that the people on the list are not entitled to their opinion. But I don't find those opinions credible simply based on the number of opinion holders. Not every opinion is valid or worthwhile. Why should I believe that these opinions are the least bit persuasive.Seriously AM, do you yourself find that list of sceptics the least bit impressive? Would you find a list of 100 physicists with contrary opinions convincing?

I didn't see an answer to either of my questions. Not really surprised.

It's fairly hard to find a complete quote with a general search because of the pervasive number of creationist sites that want to make much out of little. Is it really all that important what scientists said about some theory 70 years ago? Do we take Louis Pasteur's detractors all that seriously now?But perhaps creationists are not completely to blame for the Morrison quote. The half quote apparently appears in this form in Robert Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers, which book actually describes cosmologists coming to accept the big bang theory despite their initial reluctance.Apparently, some creationists consider BBT to be bad news for atheists because it suggest that the universe has a beginning. As a result, there is endless discussion of Jastrow's book on creationist web pages.What is the most likely way a sentence, "I would like to reject it..." might end. You can almost hear the "but" without even seeing the complete quote. Well most of us would anticipate such.No, I'm not going to do Portillo's homework or steal Pressie's thunder.Even more amusing is the Eddington quote.Eddington as quoted in From Philosophy and the Physicists: By L. Susan Stebbing.

quote:

---

Philosophically the notion of an abrupt beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator would probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind. But I can see no escape from our dilemma.

---

Yeah, there is that "but" that completely changes the sense of the quote. Actually, I can believe that Jastrow did say that. It would be perfectly in keeping with the theme of his book, which was that physicists had an initial emotion based dislike for the idea of a universe with an ultimate beginning. But that initial reaction just isn't the big deal Portillio makes of it. We can find physicists saying similar things about quantum mechanics, and even worse things about special and general relativity back in the early part of twentieth century. So what?

I feel your pain.

Really? Does the general public have any significant say in which cosmological inquiries get funded and who gets telescope time? I find the idea that the public has any significant input rather difficult to believe. Because surely there'd be more stink about how the money is being spent. I understand that the general purse strings are under public control at universities, but I expect that the scientist who get results and bring credit to their university (credit among peers) are the ones who get the money.