Red1966
Well-Known Member
So who did Jesus kill? You clearly know nothing about Jesus.
Zero respect
- Thread starter Someacdude
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I saw a squirrel jump (or attempt to, anyway) from one pole of a transformer to another. HE discovered electricity.My word... Man is the agent of change for the evolution of man. Man will either adapt or not. Did a fckn squirrel discover electricity?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Is the "big bang" theory really any different than creationism?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
If "Good" is the "right" thing to do, who decides what is good or right? Not the subject, as his notion of good or right can be anything. For many, good and right is what benefits themselves. Look how slavery was considered good and right for thousands of years.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
We haven't found "a lot of other plants", let alone "in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars". The FEW planets we have observed were gas giants, not inhabitable at all.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So if I head east to get to the beach and you head west to get to the beach, we both started from the same point? If your "logic" comes to a ridiculous conclusion (everything in the universe can fit inside a point with a volume of zero), your logic is faulty.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The big bang theory is totally different from creationism. Creationism (intelligent design) takes a top down approach of creation, that man and all the other animals were created by God in their current form. The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe expanded from a single point in the distant past. One idea is used to explain the origins of man based on a biblical world view, the other is used to explain the origins of the universe using the scientific method. One idea doesn't have any supporting evidence outside it's own religious teachings, the other has decades of scientific research and a few nobel prizes.
How do you know that it's wrong to steal from someone?
"Data from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (HEC) suggests that, of the 859 exoplanets which have been confirmed as of 3 January 2013, nine potentially habitable planets have been found, and the same source predicts that there may be 30 habitable extrasolar moons around confirmed planets. The HEC also states that of the 15,874 transit threshold crossing events (TCE) which have recurred more than three times (thus making them more likely to be actual planets), discovered by the Kepler probe up until 3 January 2013, that 262 planets (1.65%) have the potential to be habitable, with an additional 35 "warm jovian" planets which may have habitable natural satellites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Potentially_habitable_planets
You've misunderstood the explanation, your beach analogy doesn't work or make sense in this context. As the universe expands and galaxies move away from the Earth, the effect creates the redshift we observe. Just like if 5 people are standing around you with a candle and start walking outward, not only are they themselves moving, but the space between you and them is actually growing, that's why the force of the expansion is increasing, increasing the wavelength of the light they're emitting.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I didn't say Jesus killed anyone, I said it was written in the bible (in the same book condemning homosexuality) that wearing a cotton blend shirt, along with myriad other things, is punishable by death,
Yes. One is based on actual evidence and makes no assumptions about where matter and existence came from, only that at some point there was a vast expansion. The other, claims to have all the answers but with no evidence.
Great answer. Saved me some time.The big bang theory is totally different from creationism. Creationism (intelligent design) takes a top down approach of creation, that man and all the other animals were created by God in their current form. The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe expanded from a single point in the distant past. One idea is used to explain the origins of man based on a biblical world view, the other is used to explain the origins of the universe using the scientific method. One idea doesn't have any supporting evidence outside it's own religious teachings, the other has decades of scientific research and a few nobel prizes.
How do you know that it's wrong to steal from someone?
"Data from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (HEC) suggests that, of the 859 exoplanets which have been confirmed as of 3 January 2013, nine potentially habitable planets have been found, and the same source predicts that there may be 30 habitable extrasolar moons around confirmed planets. The HEC also states that of the 15,874 transit threshold crossing events (TCE) which have recurred more than three times (thus making them more likely to be actual planets), discovered by the Kepler probe up until 3 January 2013, that 262 planets (1.65%) have the potential to be habitable, with an additional 35 "warm jovian" planets which may have habitable natural satellites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Potentially_habitable_planets
You've misunderstood the explanation, your beach analogy doesn't work or make sense in this context. As the universe expands and galaxies move away from the Earth, the effect creates the redshift we observe. Just like if 5 people are standing around you with a candle and start walking outward, not only are they themselves moving, but the space between you and them is actually growing, that's why the force of the expansion is increasing, increasing the wavelength of the light they're emitting.
I'll add this;
With ~500 billion galaxies (one approximation) that we know of, that's 500,000,000,000 x 500,000,000 = 25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that could possibly sustain life.
But yeah, earth is a total anomaly with our 'perfect position' in regards to the sun.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The big bang theory is just pushing back the date of creationism. It still portrays everything as being created by "magic". Decades of research on something that happened 145 BILLION years ago is no different than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin
We were told so by religion. In nature, animals "steal" from each other all the time. Are they evil?
"potentially", "may be", "have the potential". Yeah, that's definitive.
[/QUOTE] "Just like if 5 people are standing around you" Your theory isn't that they were standing "around" me, but that we once were wholly contained inside the same point, a object that has no surface area or volume. "your ("beach" deleted)) analogy doesn't work or make sense" Nobody in the world but you thinks "the force of the expansion is increasing". That statement is wholly yours.You've misunderstood the explanation, your beach analogy doesn't work or make sense in this context. As the universe expands and galaxies move away from the Earth, the effect creates the redshift we observe. Just like if 5 people are standing around you with a candle and start walking outward, not only are they themselves moving, but the space between you and them is actually growing, that's why the force of the expansion is increasing, increasing the wavelength of the light they're emitting.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then how do you explain redshift or cosmic background radiation?
14.5 billion years, big difference
Animals of lower intelligence don't have the capacity for good or evil, it's simple survival at that level
OK, then how do we know slavery is wrong? Organized religion has condoned slavery for thousands of years, how do you know it's wrong?
Are you suggesting nothing can be known about something without physically actually being there to observe it?
This is another reason I continuously reiterate you're not qualified to have valid opinions about science, you don't understand how it works
"The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time. In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since around redshift of z~0.5. The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Not at all. It makes no claims about how things were created, least of all by 'magic'. The most logical explanation, that makes the least amount of assumptions is that matter has always existed in some form, or another.
Forensic science, (you know, the stuff that solves murders and crimes) is not guessing. It's using evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Huge difference.
Animals don't 'steal' because stealing requires rules about possession, which animals do not have. Animals don't have a sense of 'self', so how could they possibly have a sense of one's possessions, or taking possessions from another animal? Likewise, animals don't 'murder' each other, they kill for survival. Except domestic cats, they're just assholes.
Just because science doesn't have an absolute answer for something doesn't mean god did it. 'God of the gaps' argument....
That's not true, everything is gaining momentum, as in, speeding up, moving further away form one another....
EDIT: Aw, the page hadn't refreshed and I didn't see your post Pad.... funny we cited the same paragraph... lolThe accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factorhas a positive second derivative,[SUP][1][/SUP] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[SUP][2][/SUP] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] since around redshift of z~0.5.[SUP][5][/SUP] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Redshift and cosmic radiation don't prove, or even imply, that the entire universe was once just a point with no area or volume.
So what? At that scale, you might as well say "forever".
So you agree that it is our concept of it, not anything innate.
Because current religion says so.
I'm suggesting the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Don't put words in my mouth. It gives away the fact you are dishonest.
I do understand how it works. You quote some cockamamie theory and declare it is science. Then try to pretend any who disagree with you "don't understand how it works".
If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, then at some point it was completely motionless and then started moving at such a slow rate that it wouldn't have been able to overcome gravitational forces, thus remaining a point for all time. The theory of an ever increasing velocity flies in the face of conservation of energy and matter. Frankly, arguing that the universe was created in an infinitesimal fraction of a second sounds pretty much like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure about why scientists believe space didn't exist, but the fact that the universe started at a focal point, is just that; a fact. Red shift shows that everything was once very, very close together.
Morality itself, isn't innate it's a social construct derived from social animals attempting to live harmoniously.
The bible, as far as I know, hasn't changed since it was translated into the KJV. It condones slavery, and even goes into the stipulations of owning, selling, and beating, slaves.
The theory of gravity is 'just a theory' too. A 'scientific theory' isn't just a guess, the fact that you're suggesting it's 'just a theory', is very clear evidence to anyone scientifically literate that you have no idea what you're talking about. The theory of the Big bang has exceptional predictive powers, that's how they found the background radiation and the gravitational waves.
It might sound like it to you, but that is absolutely not what is being said. That is a problem you have with comprehending what's being explained, not a problem with the explanation. Religion claims everything was 'created', science does not, as science doesn't operate on baseless assumptions.
The 'cockamamie theory', as you called it, is supported by massive amounts of data, observations, and correct predictions.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Redshift indicates that objects are moving away from the Earth at an increasing rate and the cosmic background radiation shows us the disbursement of matter in the early universe, both are strong pieces of evidence that support the big bang theory
Again, are you suggesting we can't learn anything at all about the Earth because geology takes place over billions of years?
Why would the time scale matter if there is still data that can be measured?
The concept of good and bad is not innate, no
So? Where does religion derive its authority?
You don't understand how science works, a "theory" in science is a collection of facts explaining something, it's not just a "guess" as you seem to believe.
It was also also first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest
"The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community."
"cockamamie" LOL!
Again, you don't understand what you're talking about.. Trust me on this, these ideas are simply beyond the scope of your ability to understand them and your lack of objective reasoning. Couple that with your political and religious bias and it's clear to anyone why you wouldn't accept these things as fact in light of the mountains of evidence, because you can't
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, it's a theory. That's why it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Even those who postulated it only call it a theory. Red shift indicates objects are moving away from each other, not that they were ever "very, very close".
Thanks for agreeing with me.
What is your point? Are you claiming bible readers still practice slavery?
Gravity isn't considered a theory. You seem to think a theory is a proven fact. It isn't. I didn't suggest it was a theory. THE ORIGINATORS DID. Background radiation was discovered shortly after Marconi discovered electromagnetic radiation, long before the big bang theory was postulated. You can't even describe "gravitational waves"
You seem to think your explanations have a lot more credibility than they actually do. The big bang theory claims everything was "created", yet you accept it as fact, even though the even originators don't claim it to be fact.
Since I didn't specify any particular theory, your statement is just a complete fabrication. If you're referring to "the big bang", even the originators don't claim it to be fact. If you're referring to "global warming", their predictions didn't happen, that's why they changed it to "climate change". That way, no matter what happens, they can pretend they "predicted" it.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Where was geology mentioned? Time distorts and/or erases data. So does distance. Where did I say religion has any authority? I don't even have a religion. A theory is not a fact or a collection of facts. You still haven't explained how the big bang theory and "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" are not two ways of saying the same thing.. Frankly, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. Pretending you are correct because you seem to think you are smarter than me is childish. And to be frank once again, your "science" sounds much like religion to me.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"At that scale you might as well say forever" implies we can't know how the big bang happened because it happened so long ago. It doesn't matter how much time has passed as long as there is something to measure.
You said we know what is good and bad because "current religion says so", so where does religion get the authority to decide what is good and bad?
Germ theory, the theory of gravity, game theory, information theory, the theory of special relativity, quantum theory.. You don't understand how science works, and as Beefbisquit pointed out, not knowing what the word "theory" means in science to the scientifically literate is a big indication of that
The big bang theory has sufficient amounts of evidence for most scientists and reasonable people to conclude it's the closest to correct model of our universe we have available, creationism doesn't have any supporting evidence outside its own teachings
So what are your religious beliefs?
I am demonstrably smarter than you when it comes to science
"Science is religion" is what the scientifically illiterate say about science
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"Something to measure" is a pretty low bar. Why do you ask me where religion gets its authority? I never said it had any. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't debate what I say, don't pretend I said something and argue with that. You clearly don't know what a theory is, yet pretend I somehow must accept theory as fact. Your big bang theory is pretty much claiming "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". "closest to correct", whether you admit to it or not, is still not an endorsement. My religious beliefs are none of your business, but I will tell you I'm not a Christian. You are not demonstrably smarter than anyone, in fact, you seem to equate political correctness with intelligence. There is no correlation Pretending your religion is "science" is laughable..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
All you need in science is something to measure/test
I ask you where religion gets its authority because you said we know what is good and bad because "current religion says so". So where does current religion get the authority to say what is good or bad? So what if "current religion says so", virtually everything else says current religion is wrong, so why do you accept the authority from current religion instead of virtually anything else, especially considering you said you're not religious?
You've demonstrated you don't understand what theory means. The big bang theory has multiple avenues of evidence as I've already explained to you.
"Closest to correct" is better than "well, I guess so..", and I'm fine with that
Why are you ashamed to express your religious beliefs?
I'll demonstrate I'm smarter than you when it comes to science, ready?
Do you accept the big bang theory? No
Do I accept the big bang theory? Yes
Do you accept the theory of evolution? No
Do I accept the theory of evolution? Yep
Do you accept equal people should have equal rights? No
Do I accept equal people should have equal rights? Mhmm
Do you accept redshift, universal exponential expansion? No
Do I accept redshift, universal exponential expansion? Sure do
Do you accept abortion is a medical procedure? Fuck no!
Do I accept abortion is a medical procedure? Of course!
Do you accept...
Do I really need to keep going?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"All you need in science is something to measure/test " That's about as stupid as you can get. I have not claimed religion has any authority. Stop pretending I did, liar. "Theory" by DEFINITION, is unproven. ""Closest to correct" is better than "well, I guess so..", and I'm fine with that." So much for your standard of proof. Assuming I'm ashamed of my religious beliefs is asinine. Where have I ever stated people shouldn't have equal rights, barring criminals? No answer, because you always accuse anyone disagreeing with you of racism. Where have I stated evolution doesn't exist? Redshift and universal exponential expansion don't indicate the entire universe would fit inside a single point. Euthanasia is a medical procedure, I don't support that either. Do you need to keep going? I don't know. How many times do you need to accuse me of beliefs I have never had to to prove your religion? Tell us more how theory should be accepted as fact. Show us how scientifically illiterate you are. Make more false statements about me. Meanwhile, I'll watch TV.