Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded

The 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded today, to US scientists John C. Mather and George F Smoot, for their discovery of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, a critical piece of the Big Bang puzzle.

Did you hear that, creation ‘scientists’? Why wasn’t it one of you who won the prize for proving that the universe is no older than 6,000 years? Why, if the Big Bang theory is tenuous and on the verge of collapse, are scientists still winning Nobel Prizes for their work in the field? Why has a creation scientist not won it yet for proving that the Big Bang theory is nonsense? 

Once again, real research is left holding the big prize, and the woo brigade is left holding their … um … little prize.

Tomorrow the Nobel Prize in Chemistry is being awarded. Here’s a bet: the prize will not go to someone for their work on the memory of water, or morphic resonance’s effect on crystal formation, or new techniques in homeopathy.

5 Responses to “Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded”

  1. Well of course the ICR people didn;t win because of the conspiracy to keep their research with massive evidence from coming to light. Just like the research from ID that’s being repressed.

    Because we all know that scientists hate facts, evidence and research. Especially when its some new finding.

  2. […] Moonflake asks the question, albeit more snidely than I would, why it is that no “creation scientists” have ever won any recognition? They constantly talk about how the theory of the Big Bang is collapsing and the scientific community is splitting apart on the issue – all while real scientists are conducting actual experiments, gathering data, and presenting their findings for peer review. […]

  3. Rev.: yep, it’s all fault of the big evil pharmaceutical companies and the illuminati. Oh, and don’t forget the lizard aliens.

  4. Velocelraptor Says:

    Big Bang theory makes about as much sense as the Acient Mayan myth that God masturbated the Universe into existence. Devine acute flatulance is a competing therory in contemporary cosmology.

  5. Devine flatulance (sic) doesn’t explain the cosmic microwave background radiation, doesn’t explain hubble’s law, and doesn’t explain cosmic redshift. If you’re just trolling here, please try a little harder. No one is going to take that kind of immature rubbish seriously enough to get upset with you. Judging from your spelling, you must be about 12, so I guess I can understand that, but if you get a big thrill over seeing the word ‘masturbated’ in print, this really isn’t where you should be.

    By the way, just because something doesn’t make sense to you personally, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t inherently make sense.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: