This sounds like prejudice on your part. I don’t know any scientist who thinks he “knows it all” or believes himself to be “infallible”. Yet one finds arrogance in any profession because all profession involve humans. But then again aren’t you being a little arrogant yourself by dismissing science because humans can be arrogant? Besides if scientists are as arrogant as you say, that would put a check on a bad theory because any ego-centric scientist would be eager enough to make a name for himself by disproving a well-established theory. So, as you see, your point works both ways.
You shouldn’t judge me without knowing why I think the way I think. Let me explain to you why the way I think is not prejudice.
I used to accept everything that scientists said in the field of “earth sciences” and others. I believed what they presented as truth, facts, realities. For over 30 years I took everything they said without doubting for a minute what they said. The internet allowed me to find out that not all scientists accepted the interpretation of the data given by established scientists, in fact there were scientists presenting other interpretations of the data. We know every coin has two faces, I had been watching just one side of the coin. Soon I started to read what others scientists were saying. I didn’t jump immediately to their side, it was a matter of years. I realized they were not in the news, nor in the scientific magazines, nor in the “so called” scientific channels. I started to wonder why.
Then the established scientists gave signs of distress because the other scientists were shaking their world. I could see it, and what really began to turn me away from the initial group is the reaction of scientist institutions, and scientists, against the “dissenter” scientists. It was the same way dissenters are treated in oppressed countries: censure them, shut them up, deny them the opportunity to present their case, ridicule them, etc, etc. Something was not right if scientists were using these tactics to keep the other side from expressing their ideas. Here we had the most “enlightened human beings of the world” (scientists) acting in the same manner and using the same tactics that dictators use in oppressed countries.
Perhaps the theories, the interpretations, the methods, the procedures, the data were flawed. You said it: “all profession involve humans”, and as humans they didn’t want someone else to show the world their flaws. Whatever their reasons, to me it didn’t look good, honest, fair. Maybe it’s the human inclination of rooting for the underdog, the thing is that the established scientists camp lost my respect and trust.
Your logic is flawed. Granted that some scientists are dishonest, it does not logically follow that Big Bang theory is questionable on those grounds.
Answered above.
And what are the supposed hoaxes with Java Man, Peking Man, Lucy, or Archeopteryx? (Leave out explaining “global warming” because that subject is a never ending debate).
They were presented as the missing link and were believed to be so for decades until proved hoaxes. They were lies all the way, not honest mistakes but lies.
The Piltdown Man was a fabrication: they “found” a chimpanzee jaw and a human tooth that fitted in the chimpanzee jaw. For 40 years it was the proof of transition from ape to man, only to be rejected when, using more powerful microscopes, it was clearly seen that the tooth had been tampered with to make it fit the jaw. Besides, paint was used to give the jaw and tooth the appearance of aging.
Lucy was the bones from two different species presented as one. An illustrator painted the rest of the “humanoid” animal, a figment of the imagination of some scientist who coached the illustrator. Some bones were found 1,000 miles away from each other and presented, an accepted!!! as from the same animal.
The Nebraska Man (I didn’t mention him in my post) was made up of a single tooth! Again they presented the illustrated “humanoid” creature as the missing link, half man, half primate, based on a tooth! Eventually the tooth was identified as that of a pig extinct in North America but very alive in South America.
If a chicken offered any kind of explanation for rain, the scientific world would listen carefully, even if the chicken was just guessing.
Wonder why the “establishment” of scientists would listen to a chicken, yet they can’t listen carefully to the scientists on the other side of the coin.
No relevant reasons here for questioning Big Bang theory.
You mentioned the Pope, I addressed the Pope. My comment was that what he said was his personal view, he was not speaking “Ex Cathedra”. I’m not under obligation to believe what he believed regarding the BBt.
So what are the arguments of your unnamed scientists who question Big Bang theory? They wouldn’t all happen to be YECs would they?
Search the internet and you’ll find them, there are a lot of scientists that don’t agree with the BBt, YECs and no-YECs.
It sounds like you reject Big Bang theory for non-scientific reasons, reasons you have not yet stated. Perhaps you should question your own beliefs first. I suspect your personal, non-scientific presumptions are what is causing you these illogical difficulties with good science.
My assumptions are based on the explanations and interpretations given by other scientists, which by the way are logic and good science too.
