Marblehead Posted February 6, 2014 Theory of Bigfoot and ancient aliens are discussed on the History channel extensively. I guess it must be true. Hehehe. And that really pisses me off! They even do that shit on the Science Channel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 Hehehe. And that really pisses me off! They even do that shit on the Science Channel. The History channel has deteriorated which is unfortunate. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted February 6, 2014 The History channel has deteriorated which is unfortunate. History channel going rogue is one of the last straws that made me get rid of tv all together. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 6, 2014 Faith in the big bang, for instance, is nonsense and is the opposite of what science actually is about. Um, what about scientific evidence for the Big Bang? As you know the Big Bang came as a surprise for scientists, who previously believed in a static universe. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Um, what about scientific evidence for the Big Bang? As you know the Big Bang came as a surprise for scientists, who previously believed in a static universe. Here is a start. There are many sources online so as to pursue your own research. Stephen Hawking. http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Edited February 6, 2014 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 6, 2014 Here is a start. There are many sources online so as to pursue your own research. http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre I am agreeing with the Big Bang, not disputing it 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted February 6, 2014 Big Bang was first put forth by a catholic priest if I'm not pulling a politician move and 'misremembering'. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 6, 2014 Big Bang was first put forth by a catholic priest if I'm not pulling a politician move and 'misremembering'. True as best I recall. Someone else coined the term "Big Bang" though. And yes, this is still a theory. But there are enough facts to support it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted February 6, 2014 I hope you are just being facetious. ithink thats what these dudes were being when they staged a trial about it all in 1925, oh, how far we have come since then?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial and looking at your map of where creationism is publicly taught,,,, i am currently enrolled in an 8 am t & r class titled "religion in appalachia" its, well, the only thing i have argued for in this class (so far)is that we need starbucks coffee provided to us, and i think i have won that one, but the odds are stacked against me on other issues lol,, maybe when i have em all coffee'd up, i can present the opposing view, or at least i can be the devil's advocate--so to speak--i wish vortex was in this class btw. hawking now says there are no black holes,,just thought i would throw that very random tidbit in for trvia only Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted February 6, 2014 Um, what about scientific evidence for the Big Bang? As you know the Big Bang came as a surprise for scientists, who previously believed in a static universe. What evidence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted February 6, 2014 True as best I recall. http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. Someone else coined the term "Big Bang" though http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/23/local/me-37483 Sir Fred Hoyle, the astrophysicist who coined the term "Big Bang" but never accepted that theory for the origin of the universe, has died. He was 86. Hoyle died Monday in Bournemouth, England, his family said. The cause of death was not announced. He became one of Britain's best-known astronomers in 1950 with his broadcast lectures on "The Nature of the Universe." He recalled using "Big Bang" for the first time in the last of those talks, but with derision to describe a theory on the origin of the universe that he didn't accept. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 6, 2014 What evidence? Galaxies are drifting apart Background radiation 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Galaxies are drifting apart Background radiation Thanks...I don't want to get into a discussion (I'm not well versed enough), but here's a couple of rhetorical questions: is it possible that there are other explanations for why we've observed these types of things? Also, are we sure that we and those who have interpreted the results really understand them? For instance, is it 100% true that all galaxies are drifting apart from each other? At least personally I'd want to read where this was published and really comb over the methods and results, before believing that it's accurate information. Is it possible that we haven't observed all galaxies' movements? Also, if you find that it's absolutely true that every galaxy is moving apart from every other one, you have to acknowledge that it's a huge leap to go from this phenomenon, to the idea that it must be because everything was once a dense hot mess. At least to me, the big bang theory sounds like some 7 year old made it up. Edited February 6, 2014 by Aetherous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Thanks...I don't want to get into a discussion (I'm not well versed enough), but here's a couple of rhetorical questions: is it possible that there are other explanations for why we've observed these types of things? Also, are we sure that we and those who have interpreted the results really understand them? For instance, is it 100% true that all galaxies are drifting apart from each other? At least personally I'd want to read where this was published and really comb over the methods and results, before believing that it's accurate information. Is it possible that we haven't observed all galaxies' movements? Also, if you find that it's absolutely true that every galaxy is moving apart from every other one, you have to acknowledge that it's a huge leap to go from this phenomenon, to the idea that it must be because everything was once a dense hot mess. At least to me, the big bang theory sounds like some 7 year old made it up. Seven year old? What? I doubt there are any seven year olds that can do the math. What is your level of education? This Stanford lecture series may be of use if you understand the math. Edited February 6, 2014 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted February 6, 2014 Thanks...I don't want to get into a discussion (I'm not well versed enough), but here's a couple of rhetorical questions: is it possible that there are other explanations for why we've observed these types of things? Also, are we sure that we and those who have interpreted the results really understand them? For instance, is it 100% true that all galaxies are drifting apart from each other? At least personally I'd want to read where this was published and really comb over the methods and results, before believing that it's accurate information. Is it possible that we haven't observed all galaxies' movements? Also, if you find that it's absolutely true that every galaxy is moving apart from every other one, you have to acknowledge that it's a huge leap to go from this phenomenon, to the idea that it must be because everything was once a dense hot mess. At least to me, the big bang theory sounds like some 7 year old made it up. I would respond, but I'm speechless 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted February 6, 2014 Seven year old? What? I doubt there are any seven year olds that can do the math. What is your level of education? This Stanford lecture series may be of use if you understand the math. You don't understand why I said a 7 year old? Because galaxies drifting apart = they were once one mass, is the leap that was made in believing the theory. It's incredibly basic, and who says it's the only possibility? Who even says that every single galaxy is drifting from every other? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted February 6, 2014 I would respond, but I'm speechless What's your point...that asking questions is stupid? That if someone doesn't toe the line of Scienceism, they must be stupid? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I hope you are just being facetious. I'm a flexible open minded guy willing to admit I was wrong. It was at 1:20. You, my dear sir, are worse than an unbeliever! ... and what is worse than an unbeliever? A heretic! (A heretic is someone who believes what I believe but not quiet in the same way as I believe it). Get your facts straight and stop putting up false information ...." The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. " < It was around 1:20 and that is NOT 12:15ish ! What are you up to ? What is your hidden agenda .... the work of he devil ... thats what it IS ! WHY ... I .... <splutter ... pop ... bing... collapses to the flaw and ... pops a vein ... convulses ... fits > Ghhh .. gg ... gggak ! Edited February 6, 2014 by thelerner 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 What's your point...that asking questions is stupid? That if someone doesn't toe the line of Scienceism, they must be stupid? May I ask what kind and how much education you have in science and math. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) May I ask what kind and how much education you have in science and math. You may, but you should be aware that you sound very condescending in asking. I have a Bachelor's degree in Athletic Training, so I've had stuff like college level chemistry, algebra, biology, etc. I haven't had the higher level classes of those subjects. Edited February 6, 2014 by Aetherous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 You may, but you should be aware that you sound very condescending in asking. I have a Bachelor degree in Athletic Training, so I've had stuff like college level chemistry, algebra, biology, etc. I haven't had the higher level classes of those subjects. Not at all. Just wondered where your questions are coming from. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Nothing wrong with asking questions. However it doesn't hurt to explore advanced sources such as the Stanford lectures I posted. Challenging oneself can lead to many realizations. Edited February 6, 2014 by ralis 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goatguy-too Posted February 6, 2014 Now for something completely different... ;-) I always thought that creation happened in a timeless eternity where things that appear to happen in billions of years can occur in the same timeless quantum fluctuation as things which appear to take a billionth of a second. Oh, and that time started and is merely an indicator of decay as a result of the fall. So I guess I would say I believe that the universe wasn't created in seven days, but in a timeless instant. And even though nothing travels faster than light so they say, we got here before the radiation from the Big Bang did (evidenced by the fact that we observe the background radiation of Big Bang) because in a timeless existence there is no such thing as speed, hence no speed of light. ;-) ..... running for the exit before the rotten tomatoes fly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 6, 2014 Now for something completely different... ;-) I always thought that creation happened in a timeless eternity where things that appear to happen in billions of years can occur in the same timeless quantum fluctuation as things which appear to take a billionth of a second. Oh, and that time started and is merely an indicator of decay as a result of the fall. So I guess I would say I believe that the universe wasn't created in seven days, but in a timeless instant. And even though nothing travels faster than light so they say, we got here before the radiation from the Big Bang did (evidenced by the fact that we observe the background radiation of Big Bang) because in a timeless existence there is no such thing as speed, hence no speed of light. ;-) ..... running for the exit before the rotten tomatoes fly. What fall? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I love this guy: He may have destroyed Kirk's Enterprise, but he's a hell of a teacher. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/universe-scale-topic/big-bang-expansion-topic/v/cosmic-background-radiation Speaking to Goat Guys question on radiation: Big bang and expansion of the universe Big bang introduction Radius of observable universe Radius of observable universe (correction) Red shift Cosmic background radiation Cosmic background radiation 2 Hubble's law A universe smaller than the observable He Keeps It Short, Simple as possible and draws pictures. Here's his explanations on Evolution: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/intelligent-design-and-evolution Edited February 6, 2014 by thelerner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
