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.


Against “Do the Laws of Science Support Biological Evolution?”

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

This post speaks to the Theory of Evolution as a scientific discovery and to its concrete roots in mathematics and the scientific process. The greatest criticism that this post offers for the Theory of Evolution is the fact that is not reliable or replicable science at its core. The evidence provided against this is a long list of equations that can be found in Physics and Chemistry that demonstrate principles that unite all sorts of trends we have scientifically deduced throughout the course of human history.

My first comment on this post is that we can somewhat standardize our understanding of evolution so as to make it more mathematic (see this article for more information). This type of science has been used to determine when modern humans and chimps differentiated based on the evolution and mutation within the genomes of hair and body lice. This mutation, though it is random, can be interpreted and utilized to create accurate timelines.

My second concerns the last paragraph of the post, explaining that the Theory of Evolution cannot produce new information and therefore cannot account for the major changes predicted by evolutionary theory. Ironically, this is correct. Evolutionary theory is not a tool for understanding where humans, or any species, are going–it is merely something that occurs over time and is observable based on changes in populations. We can utilize evolutionary theory to better understand why humans are the way we are–the trait differences that have distinguished different members of a population from another and made some more fit than others. The reality is that this selection is still occurring, though evolutionary theory is still not a predictive tool.