Forward by the Editor
Let's review. In the last section of the GvD Issue 2 we talked about how the Big Bang is not a good scientific model, even by secular reasoning. It is not simple, it does not make specific and accurate predictions, and it includes many arbitrary assumptions in order to make it function with the observations. And we haven't even begun to talk about the scientific problems with the model!
But wait... are there any scientific problems with the Big Bang model? Or is everyone fighting the theory just a bunch of ignorant pseudo-scientific church-goers? You may be surprised at the number of problems even scientifically with the theory. Some of these problems Big-Bangers have tried to solve. But even so, are these "solutions" understandable, logical conclusions; or even more evidence that the Big Bang model should be discarded?
Also, keep in mind the example about the geocentric model and how the Greeks got it to function in the last section. If you don't remember, go back and read it. It will be very helpful in this second section, especially the arbitrary epicycles. It will help us see in this section whether these "solutions" are logical, or arbitrary.
If I could make a crashing sound with text here, I would. By the end of this issue, that crashing sound will be the Big Bang model crashing into the facts. I know I say it every time, but I hope you enjoy this newsletter!