Conservapedia’s Bullshit Pile, Pt. 4
Something a little more topical today: Conservafecesedia’s article on dark energy starts with:
Dark energy is one of two concepts (the other is dark matter) that Big Bang cosmologists and astrophysicists have invented to explain the most serious differences to date between astronomical observations of an expanding universe and their own expectations. It is “the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate”;[1] Astronomers and cosmologists have been speculating on the nature of this dark energy for ten years.
Made up? This is complete nonsense. Dark energy (along with ‘dark matter’) is a placeholder term that’s used by particle physicists. Why? Well… we don’t know what they are. We may find out when the Large Hadron Collider gets switched on next week. However, the two concepts are far from invented – we can and HAVE inferred their presence. They almost certainly exist. And either way, in my opinion, it’s a more believable scenario than everything being held together by a giant sky fairy.
It gets better (or worse, depending on whether you find this comic or simply disturbing). What does Conservapedia’s article on the Big Bang say? Well, nothing. It redirects to “Big Bang theory“. Yes, apparently, it’s still a theory.
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.
Even discounting the fact that this is completely solid, K-12 level science, with more evidence than you can shake a stick at, look at who contests it. Young earth creationist scientists. Scientists? This is purile. Science is something that can be tested and repeated (which will be happening at CERN next week, albeit thousands of times smaller and much safer), not belief, based on a book written by bronze-age halfwits, which claims that some shiny beardy man living on a cloud farted out the earth in seven days – which cannot be tested, anyway.
