Science is about making the best models and theories to match reality. This is done by comparing prediction with result. "Good" theories make predictions which agree well with subsequent data.
It's a "forced fit"! You are literally "making up" whatever properties you wish to assign. It's make believe time.
Of course not. You just gave a stupid name to it because you utterly incapable of doing any science, remember.
I remember that you can't handle the comparison because it exposes the flaw in your argument and shows that you are relying on 'make-believe math'. You don't have an empirical leg to stand on, so somehow it's all my fault.
Because the properties that are postulated (note: not assigned) are based on observation. They're then tested against new experimental data.
There is no *experimental data". You "made up" the properties to fit the observation and then your right around and try to use that same observation to support the very same argument. It's a completely made up solution.
If they match well with experimental data we start to trust tat the theory may be a good indicator of reality.
What "experiment"? You're using the *SAME OBSERVATIONS* that you POSTDICTED your theory from to now support that same theory! It's a completely self serving argument.
Unless of course, the "scientist" is utterly incapable of understanding what science is and would prefer to just stick in stupid word like "gumby" "dead" or "deity" in a desperate forlorn hope that people won't realise there complete inability to make a coherent scientific argument.
Ya and in religious circles I'm "evil" too. I guess since you can't call me a pawn in satan's minions, the personal attacks are a little different. Oh well. Somehow it's always my fault when a creationists argument lacks empirical support.
Funny that. For that to be the case you'd have to believe the models of galactic evolution to be accurate. For that to be the case you'd have to believe in the reality of dark matter.
I believe you folks are living in the "dark" ages of astronomy and some day you'll eventually (maybe not this group actually) have to accept that we live inside of an electric universe. Things will then improve dramatically in terms of empirical physics.
Nobody "picked" a creation date.
Of course you did. Alfven's bang would have been a radically different date for instance.
We have excellent agreement between multiple independent sources which give an age of approximately 13.7 billion years. Thanks for nicely highlighting this fact.
All it highlights is that other assumption you made about all matter and energy being collected to a "clump". You can't justify that claim or your date in terms of empirical physics. You just selected it at random based on a series of assumptions you made.
It needs to evolve on some timescale. Unless you don't mind violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Galaxies might be created and destroyed all the time for all I know. I have no belief that it all "started' from a single clump and therefore I hold no belief that they should "age" in any particular way.
The laws of physics are independent of humans. Therefore it doesn't matter where we test them.
You never actually "test" anything. You postdict a fit. You point to the same observation and then say "See how well I "predicted" that!" Some "prediction".
To match other aspects of the CMBR (and other stuff). No other cosmology has ever managed to match the power spectrum (let alone predict anything so well).
So you need it in order to claim it "fits so perfectly"? Ever think of giving up metaphysics and trying for "nearly perfect"?
.