{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
작성자: SuperJohnJohn
11/6/2019 5:27:43 AM
16
Not going to lie here. The Big Bang isn’t science...
And you didn’t even highlight the hypocrisy of the argument either. It’s a bad lift that doesn’t fit
English
-
[quote]Not going to lie here. The Big Bang isn’t science...[/quote] Wut? All arguments about religion and god aside seriously... wut? Are you aware of the evidence for the Big Bang? Do you known how they arrived at the conclusion it’s true? Genuine question why don’t you believe it’s science? Not a religious debate. Just a genuine curiosity as to why you think it’s not science.
-
작성자: Uncanny_Vale 11/6/2019 1:42:26 PM[quote]Science is the scientific method. origins is not a thing that can be tested or observed. so it is not science[/quote] I’m sorry to be blunt but that’s plain ridiculous. The Big Bang theory has been tested and observed. The evidence for the Big Bang involves multiple lines of evidence and is irrefutable. It’s not just speculation it’s based upon actual observation and testing. You can directly observe the expansion of the universe - the galaxies red-shifting away from each other. They can directly observe and measure this expansion. The only explanation for this is if the universe expanded from the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. Furthermore there is direct observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Which is the remnant heat from the Big Bang itself. The only way this can be explained is if the universe was once upon a time was very hot, dense and small. This microwave background was a PREDICTION of the theory that turned out to be true. Another prediction of the Big Bang is that the hot dense state at the beginning of the universe would have produced particular quantities and distribution of elements in the universe like hydrogen, helium and other elements. This prediction matches the observation of the actual distribution we find in the universe exactly. Another piece of evidence is you can see a lot of quasars in the distant universe, which means these objects were very common billions of years ago. But there are hardly any quasars in our local, modern universe (the further out into space you look the further back in time you are observing). This shows that the universe was different in its past than it is today - which is strong direct evidence against a steady state universe and for the Big Bang model. There are many other direct observations that provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. The idea that it can’t be observed is just plain wrong. No you can’t look at the the moment the Big Bang happened. But they have directly observed the consequences of that moment - and all of the observations made match up to the predictions made by the theory. Which is the heart of the scientific method - a theory should make predictions. Every prediction the Big Bang has made has turned out correct. That is why it is a theory rather than a hypotheses. It’s one of the most well established and proven theories in science. If you actually looked at the theory and the evidence for it you would find that denial of it is simply untenable. I’m not sure why religious people want to deny it anyway (funny how it’s only religious people who try to deny it). As far as I can see there’s no reason why religious people can’t accept the Big Bang (unless you’re a young earth creationist or something). Can’t you just say god caused it? Edit: Added PBS Space Time video (great series) that does better job of explaining this than me.
-
So I'm actually going to clarify your timeline. The theory of the Big Bang was made to describe all the things we see. It was made post ex facto. You cannot test it because you cannot replicate the Big Bang... so while components of it can be tested. you cannot test it as a whole so parts of the Big Bang is science and the rest is not. just like parts of a computer are gold, but the computer is not actually gold
-
I I don’t think you understand what science is. The Big Bang theory, like all theories, is a model. It is an explanation for what we observe. The scientific method proposes that models be falsifiable - that they be testable. How that works is that the model should make predictions - if those predictions do not match up with observation then the theory has been falsified and is revised or scrapped. If that models predictions stand up to repeated testing (if it’s predictions turn out to match observation over and over again) then it becomes the prevalent accepted model. It becomes a theory. The Big Bang theory - as I explained above - has stood up to repeated testing. It is the [u]only[/u] model that accurately predicts the observed data. Despite what you may of been told this is how the scientific method works. You do not need to be able to repeat the Big Bang in the lab to test its predictions. Now if you want to say that the Big Bang theory is wrong you will need to falsifying that model. You will need to find some data that contradicts the Big Bang theories predictions. For example you would pretty much have to disprove general relativity. Or observe that the cosmic microwave background radiation is a different temperature than predicted by the model. Or discover that the universe isn’t in fact expanding. Alternatively you will need to propose your own model that better explains the observed data. One that explains all of the things I listed above - and all the other observable things about the universe I didn’t list. Good luck with that.
-
And you [u]completely missed the god damn point[/u]. You’re hypocritical because your side claims atheists are the same as flat earthers, even though you can use the same argument to prove Christians are the same as them.
-
Nah, you missed the point. ANY PERSON WHO USES THE "I HAVE TO SEE IT TO BELIEVE IT ARGUMENT" IS THE EXACT SAME AS A FLAT EARTHER. THERE IS NO HYPOCRISY IN LOGIC. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. I NEVER SAID CHRISTIANS ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT. in fact. I am working on my post to trigger all the christians here because they are not being logically inconsistent. So next time. before jumping to the conclusion that I am being hypocritical. look to see if I actually make the claim that you suppose me to make.
-
[u]You[/u] never said Christians are, others did. You don’t seem to know why I made this post? In a small interaction with a user named Element Ninja, he claimed Christians don’t apply to your logic, and that it isn’t hypocritical for a Christian to use it. He basically challenged me to prove my shit. Grow a -blam!-ing sack hoTH, this wasn’t aimed at you specifically. It’s purpose is to show those who said I had no ground to why I said it’s hypocritical for Christians to act like they’re immune to this argument. Jesus mother -blam!-ing Christ, I had higher expectations of you.
-
I never got mad. I just lost all my respect for you. Comparing those you disagree with to an idiot is one of the most, well, idiotic things you could do. In your post you don’t specify that all people who deny something based off of whether they’ve seen it or not, instead you sweep under the rug the fact you do it too. As I said in my reply to your original post, I know the title was bait, but when someone is so ignorant they resort to bait and insults, they lose all respect from me. But you’re just a chick-fil-a worker who doesn’t know what science is, so I probably shouldn’t bother.
-
작성자: Banned Moment 11/6/2019 5:27:46 AMI do agree with this. How can something come from nothing? I know people will say well God came from nothing, but since God is eternal he's been around forever and before time meaning he wasn't created he is the [i]creator[/i]
