The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

Pro has clearly conceded the arguments about rotational curves and the Dark Halo Conspiracy. If Pro had bothered to even read my arguments (I'm assuming he hasn't due to the way he has dismissed it), he would realize that both arguments are very valid for BB. I have stated that these are what BB predicted wrong, not what it did not predict. Pro ignores that. I won"t be rephrasing the argument. Pro evidently knows he cannot argue his way out of the falsified predictions, and hence he claims that the arguments presented by me is not evidence. Notice how later he states, "Now we've actually got an argument, I can do something with it." He knows he can"t refute actual arguments that I presented earlier. Pro now argues that I commit a "Theory Gish gallop." Not only is his criticism of these theories I cited false, his interpretation of what I meant is also false. I will not re-state myself. Let me go through each of the supposed evidences for dark matter. Now he cites rotational curves. First, notice his dismissal of rotational curves earlier on as evidence against the BB. Now, notice his glaring logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Rotational curves falsifies BB predictions unless there is dark matter. Therefore there is dark matter. His second point references a graph that draws the curves of standard BB theory and BB theory WITH dark matter. Thus, it does not refute any "other cosmological models." Pro"s third point would have been addressed if he had only read my arguments! This is more evidence that he has not. Pro has made the a priori assumption that all other models other than variations of BB models are false. Notice that he takes the reference totally out of context. He equates phenomena which DM fits to phenomena to which ONLY DM can fit. See for yourself the actual statement from the article, "The observed phenomena consistent with the existence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies." Pro nows goes into accusatory mode and claims that I make false claims about BB. I have surmounted and disproven all of Pro"s "evidences" for DM while he has dropped all of mine, claiming that I provided no evidence. He may be from Britain, but that does not mean he can be allowed to diss evidence. I will therefore not respond to his allegations. Pro might use this to claim that I have conceded, but all he has shown is that he uses the fallacy of ignoring the argument. Redshifts: For the fifth reference, Pro uses quotation marks to make it seem like the article"s authors said that. Readers. Be warned. No such remarks exist in ANY format. I downloaded them and went through the whole thing. Pro is being intellectually dishonest here just like how he was intellectually dishonest by dismissing rotation curves as evidence against BB. At least for his second quotation, Pro quotes straight from the conclusion. With much removed. However, I find articles in support of quantized redshifts published later than that Pro has presented [1][2]. These go to show that quantized redshifts has not been "falsified", as Pro would like readers to believe. Pro claims that a galactocentric model is stupid. So? We are not debating the merits of a galactocentric model! We are debating the Big Bang model. Pro claims that my argument that the Universe is shown by quantized redshifts to be not homogenous ignores my previous arguments, which, when taken into account, provides even stronger evidence than one point alone. Pro cites data from Talkorigins, which does not cite data from any reliable peer-reviewed articles. Thus, readers, please take note of any data which Pro cites with a grain of salt. I could not find the data in ANY peer-reviewed articles despite looking for it on google"s scholarly articles search engine. Thus, those in Britain (with a capital "B", thank you) would be disappointed to know that Pro has not given any verifiable evidence. Redshifts in quasars: Pro uses a Red Herring here. He totally ignores the evidence I presented and goes off on a different tangent. I will thus not refute his contentions. I consider my point to have been conceded by Pro due to his not refuting the data I presented. CMBR: The same plague that infests all of Pro"s response is idealized in this section of the reply. If one could visualize his arguments, it would be that of a young boy covering his ears and taunting, "LALALALA! I cannot hear you!" *Sticks out tongue*. This is both intellectually dishonest and immature. Pro derides me for strengthening my arguments! Is it just me, or does everyone agree how lame that is? Pro demanded in the second round that I provide valid arguments. When I do, how does he reply? He shifts attention away from the argument! Star composition: Pro claims that star formation has no relation to BB and is a red herring. Star formation [3], however, is vital to the BB, as I have stated. Off-handedly dissing the relationship is actually a red herring in that it detracts from the argument. Resources: Pro states, "These form stars." The very process by which they form into stars is what I dispute. It is entirely relevant to the BB. Same criteria applies. I don"t want to hear a cosmos-scale story without, and let me quote Pro, "Actual cold hard evidence, and no less." CMBR (again): Yet more evidence that Pro had not read my arguments. If Pro had only took the time to actually read my arguments, he would have found that SZE opposes his idea of background radiation. I do not repeat un-refuted arguments. Dark Matter: Let me now paraphrase from Pro. Sources are used to back up an argument, not to make one. Even if the source makes a valid argument, I will not respond. Thank you! Conclusion: I have come to the conclusion that Pro is intellectually dishonest. This is because he "quotes" from non-existent data and dismisses arguments which have entire relevance to the debate about the BB as having no relevance. I have presented a data-based argument, which Pro has not bothered to answer. Pro uses non-peer-reviewed text sources as data. This is unacceptable. Pro paraphrases me wrongly on two separate occasions, adding grammatical and spelling mistakes which I did not make. I have shown that Pro frequently, if not consistently, misrepresents, distorts, and straw man my arguments. If Pro does not validly refute my arguments against BB in the next post, I will assume that he has conceded the debate. 1. http://arxiv.org... 2. http://arxiv.org... 3. http://science.nasa.gov...