Spillover thead

[BoFox]

I don't give a damn if you believe in god or not.  I do give a damn if you spray your religious crap all over the forum.

If you don't, then why do you refuse to consider any scientific evidence that goes against the hugely flawed Big Bang theory or the Evolution theory.  That, to me, is like when Ptolemy's or even Aristotle's theories were still being taught at secular institutions as fact.  Except, nowadays, we have so much more data to prove that the current popular theories belong in the crapper just as much as that of Ptolemy's, yet the resistance to any real scientific progress is several orders of magnitude greater than ever before, even when religious denominations had much more authority.

The Oort Cloud theory is one of the most ludicrous theories ever made - with which there has been absolutely zero evidence for ever since the inception of the theory (but yet ever-increasing pointers towards the theory being craptastic).  It completely fails to explain this bar graph:



And also completely fails to explain this observed phenomena:

Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, pp. 385–401.
Assuming the Oort cloud exists helps preserve the belief in a multibillion-year age for the solar system.
u “Recently, Lyttleton (1974) confirmed our conclusion of 1954: the Oort’s hypothetical cloud of comets cannot exist.”  S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 470.
Vsekhsvyatsky estimated (p. 470) that considerably more than 1020 gm/yr of cometary matter are lost from the solar system. Over the supposed age of the solar system (4.5 billion years), lost comet mass would “nearly correspond to the total present mass of the planets.” He believed this was unreasonable.
“... many people would be happier if there were more objective evidence for the reality of the Oort Cloud.” John Maddox, “Halley’s Comet Is Quite Young,” Nature, Vol. 339, 11 May 1989, p. 95.

(All of these references are from official scientific journals).  The Oort Cloud is just one of the hundreds of ludicrous theories developed to back the whole Big Bang Evolution theory.

It'd require a huge massive "disturbance in the force" for scientists to actually divorce themselves from a flawed foundation (like Ptolemy's epicycles theory as was the case for centuries), so the resistance is great - all fueled by the atheist movement.  

Please just spend a few moments looking into this, exploring this avenue backed by ALL the scientific data that we have, and understand that it's just overwhelming scientific data and nothing more.  It's like an archaeologist refusing to dig under Jerusalem just because the Bible said that a lot of historical events happened there in that area, except that science is now telling us to dig under Jerusalem (but everybody is ignoring science now)..