Against “Big Bust: ‘Evidence’ for Big Bang recanted”

This post is written against this page under the Physics tab on

The timeline constructed by this post reads that in 2014 there was evidence uncovered that revealed gravitational waves present in the universe that were, essentially, aftershocks and remnants of the big bang. In 2015, the post claims, the European Space Agency went against this evidence and claimed that the supposed gravitational waves were merely space dust and were not the gravitational waves they were originally thought to be. The post then concludes that this information has been covered up because it does not agree with the “microbes to man” evolutionary philosophy and that our entire conception of the universe as we know it is a lie.

I have several problems with this post. First and foremost, after searching the ESA’s website, I have found an abundance of informative videos and articles to help everyone better understand the Big Bang. If his evidence were true, one can only imagine that the ESA would not be such a strong educational proponent of Big Bang thinking. It is impossible to critically evaluate the source this post was using as it merely links to the ESA homepage. This is a clear example of how potentially bad science that is accessible to the public can be misinterpreted or misrepresented through all of the channels we have available to us for information.

My second problem, and one that is problematic about each and every post on this website, is the way in which it tunnel visions on sources that benefit the claim it is trying to make. A simple google search can lead to dozens of sources, just as credible as the ones this post claims to cite, that claim the exact opposite of what the post claims. Just look at this one, or this one, or even this one. While this post is not an explicit lie, it is a clear misrepresentation of the information that is available–a common problem with many bogus websites such as this one. The citation of scientific articles and credible agencies (like the ESA) makes the website slightly more believable and thus is able to convince people to come on board with its conclusion. Doing your own research though, taking into account the wealth of information out there, as well as using some common sense, leaves this website without a leg to stand on.