Split Thread Describing the universe

[Reality Check]

Yes, but the site you linked to had this to say.

"Researching and refuting creationist claims is a thankless job for scientists. The contributions of those who expose the distortions of “creation scientists” are often buried in obscure Internet sites and discussion groups."

Obviously they have a job to do. They make a distinction between scientists and scientists that believe in God version 1.0.

Its pretty obvious they are on a vendetta.

You are still wrong. This is what I stated:

You are indulging in a straw man argument. At no point do I mention "a belief in god" or scientists having such a belief.

Note the highlight. I am talking about me and what I wrote in my post.

The web site also does not state that "a belief in god" makes for bad science. Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy is about dealing with the bad science stated by creationist scientists in general. It includes the pointing out of the bad science of some non-creationist scientiests, e.g. "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" with followups on his blog (An "Electric Sky" response? )

The web site makes a distinction between scientists and people that do incorrect science.

It is pretty obvious that Tom Bridgman is on a personal mission to expose the bad science in astronomy, concentrating on creationism. The exposure of incorrect science should be the goal of any good scientist. The continual testing of scientific theories is a critical part of the scientific method.

 

[KingMerv00]

Describe the universe:

1) Void
2) Hydrogen
3) Helium
4) Trace elements.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

don't forget the photons and neutrinos.
also dark matter
(and all those other particles, antimatter, and dark energy, whatever that is)