User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:53:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know that you think that is a fact, but I and other Christians most certainly do not "view science as a threat to religion". Nothing is a threat to my religion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. People clinging to ignorance, because they view science as a threat to religion. I know that you think that is a fact, but I and other Christians most certainly do not "view science as a threat to religion". Nothing is a threat to my religion. There's quite a few strawmen that have been created in regards to this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:54:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me see if I can understand the Big Bang. Once upon a time the universe was the size of a head of a pin. All the trillions of galaxies and trillions of stars that we observe today were compressed to the size of an atom or something. That really makes sense, doesn't it? Nobody has a clue where that little atom size universe came from but it was just hanging around. Then all of a sudden that atom size universe exploded into the enormous universe we observe today. Nobody knows what cased the explosion but hey, what the heck, why let things like that get in the way of a prosperous theory? Our proof for this magical theory is some kind of background radiation and what seems to be the fact that the universe seems to be expanding outward, otherwise we don't have too much to go on. Thanks a lot for the magic theory but I'll go with intelligent design. It is more logical. You're missing the point on science. It's a theory. It's the best explanation that matches the current data. If someone comes up w/ better data, or data that conflicts with it they'll change it. I personally don't think intelligent design and the big bang theory are mutually exclusive, but I don't think intelligent design is more logical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:55:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me see if I can understand the Big Bang. Once upon a time the universe was the size of a head of a pin. All the trillions of galaxies and trillions of stars that we observe today were compressed to the size of an atom or something. That really makes sense, doesn't it? Nobody has a clue where that little atom size universe came from but it was just hanging around. Then all of a sudden that atom size universe exploded into the enormous universe we observe today. Nobody knows what cased the explosion but hey, what the heck, why let things like that get in the way of a prosperous theory? Our proof for this magical theory is some kind of background radiation and what seems to be the fact that the universe seems to be expanding outward, otherwise we don't have too much to go on. Thanks a lot for the magic theory but I'll go with intelligent design. It is more logical. Hilarious, nice condensing attitude from the sky fairy lobby.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:57:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You guys come into these threads and preach really hard about how dumb scientists are and how smart you are for believing every word within a 3,000 year old book. This thread had nothing to do with religion. And yet, people came in and wanted to dispute science with religion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. People clinging to ignorance, because they view science as a threat to religion. I know that you think that is a fact, but I and other Christians most certainly do not "view science as a threat to religion". Nothing is a threat to my religion. You guys come into these threads and preach really hard about how dumb scientists are and how smart you are for believing every word within a 3,000 year old book. This thread had nothing to do with religion. And yet, people came in and wanted to dispute science with religion. 2. There is no dispute. Science is discovery of God IMO, it's one and the same. The issue is when people claim the science is settled in regards to there not being a God; when in fact it isn't, even from a purely atheistic POV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:58:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My feeble brain hurts when I try to comprehend that something has always been in existence with no beginning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-deflated-universe-may-had-no-beginning-140017504.html If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang. In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all. "Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. The new concept could also explain what dark matter — the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up most of the matter in the universe — is actually made of, Das added. My feeble brain hurts when I try to comprehend that something has always been in existence with no beginning. ETA: let's be clearer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 1:58:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me see if I can understand the Big Bang. Once upon a time the universe was the size of a head of a pin. All the trillions of galaxies and trillions of stars that we observe today were compressed to the size of an atom or something. That really makes sense, doesn't it? Nobody has a clue where that little atom size universe came from but it was just hanging around. Then all of a sudden that atom size universe exploded into the enormous universe we observe today. Nobody knows what cased the explosion but hey, what the heck, why let things like that get in the way of a prosperous theory? Our proof for this magical theory is some kind of background radiation and what seems to be the fact that the universe seems to be expanding outward, otherwise we don't have too much to go on. Thanks a lot for the magic theory but I'll go with intelligent design. It is more logical. Well you didn't get much of the Big Bang right, but damned if you don't have a way with words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:01:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of us have a detailed understanding of the present theory. We just aren't pretentious assholes set on declaring ourselves smart. As someone who accepts the current mainstream theories as reasonably sound based on currently observed evidence, allow me to apologize for the autistic neckbeards bashing those who disagree with their perspective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. Some of us have a detailed understanding of the present theory. We just aren't pretentious assholes set on declaring ourselves smart. As someone who accepts the current mainstream theories as reasonably sound based on currently observed evidence, allow me to apologize for the autistic neckbeards bashing those who disagree with their perspective. I really don't care if someone believes in intelligent design. It is your right to believe in whatever you like. What I care about is people butchering a theory they don't even understand as a reasoning for not believing in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:01:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not terribly convincing as a theory for the current state of the universe either. ETA: Defenders of the current orthodoxy love to do what you just did. The pattern is something like this: Skeptic: I'm not sure about this theory because it dovetails rather poorly with this observable fact. Defender: The theory doesn't address that fact! Skeptic: To the discredit of the theory... Defender: You fail to understand the theory. Skeptic: The theory fails to impress. Defender: You fail to impress! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Every scientific theory about the beginning of the universe is just that, a theory, nothing more, nothing less. The big bang theory as an explanation for the origin of the universe is not terribly convincing from a logical perspective. It's not terribly convincing as a theory for the current state of the universe either. ETA: Defenders of the current orthodoxy love to do what you just did. The pattern is something like this: Skeptic: I'm not sure about this theory because it dovetails rather poorly with this observable fact. Defender: The theory doesn't address that fact! Skeptic: To the discredit of the theory... Defender: You fail to understand the theory. Skeptic: The theory fails to impress. Defender: You fail to impress! As usual this tactic is very unimpressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:02:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So give up? Its those types of people that keep the ball rolling. Protip: Humans learn more from failure than they do a quick success. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
--- Snip --- I have been saying this for a long long time, and im an Atheist. the Big Bang has been like a science religion for too long. It far more compelling to simply understand that the universe exists and has always existed.. and theists are like "woah, but it had to be created" and then you say "so where did God come from" and they're like "but he always existed".. yeah.. Im sticking with universe always existed... I think the real problem is some have too much pride to simply say "I Don't Know" (and nobody really does). So give up? Its those types of people that keep the ball rolling. Protip: Humans learn more from failure than they do a quick success. I did not say to give up at all; As a Christian I tend to continually seek answers to my questions. I think many dig in and defend their position and become closed minded (and yes on both sides). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:03:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me see if I can understand the Big Bang. Thanks a lot for the magic theory but I'll go with intelligent design. It is more logical. If by more logical you mean something for which there is absolutely no evidence and is entirely based on mythology, wishful thinking, and logical fallacies. Bottom line is "intelligent design": 1) Explains nothing about the universe. 2) Makes no predictions. 3) Is not falsifiable. Its not a theory, its not a hypothesis, its simply a "just so" story of "a supernatural magic guy did it because he wanted it this way" As such, "intelligent design" is not an alternative to the standard model of cosmology any more than "accidental supernatural creation" as described by many pagan religions is. Its a story that no-one who understands where it comes from takes seriously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:06:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. You misrepresent the discussion. 2. There is no dispute. Science is discovery of God IMO, it's one and the same. The issue is when people claim the science is settled in regards to there not being a God; when in fact it isn't, even from a purely atheistic POV. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. People clinging to ignorance, because they view science as a threat to religion. I know that you think that is a fact, but I and other Christians most certainly do not "view science as a threat to religion". Nothing is a threat to my religion. You guys come into these threads and preach really hard about how dumb scientists are and how smart you are for believing every word within a 3,000 year old book. This thread had nothing to do with religion. And yet, people came in and wanted to dispute science with religion. 2. There is no dispute. Science is discovery of God IMO, it's one and the same. The issue is when people claim the science is settled in regards to there not being a God; when in fact it isn't, even from a purely atheistic POV. You won't see me say science proves that a God doesn't exist. If religious people want people of science to take them seriously, then they should actually know what a scientific theory is and such. Or argue against it without using bible scripture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:06:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really don't care if someone believes in intelligent design. It is your right to believe in whatever you like. What I care about is people butchering a theory they don't even understand as a reasoning for not believing in it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. Some of us have a detailed understanding of the present theory. We just aren't pretentious assholes set on declaring ourselves smart. As someone who accepts the current mainstream theories as reasonably sound based on currently observed evidence, allow me to apologize for the autistic neckbeards bashing those who disagree with their perspective. I really don't care if someone believes in intelligent design. It is your right to believe in whatever you like. What I care about is people butchering a theory they don't even understand as a reasoning for not believing in it. Failing to see why that is a big deal. You will always have those who misunderstand or misrepresent a theory. All that does is present an opportunity to prove them wrong. And honestly, generally more wild critique, not less, is a good thing. Just look at paleoanthropology, and the weak and flawed theories that an echo chamber allowed to thrive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:08:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, you can't, apparently. If by more logical you mean something for which there is absolutely no evidence and is entirely based on mythology, wishful thinking, and logical fallacies. Bottom line is "intelligent design": 1) Explains nothing about the universe. 2) Makes no predictions. 3) Is not falsifiable. Its not a theory, its not a hypothesis, its simply a story of "a supernatural magic guy did it because he wanted it this way" As such, "intelligent design" is not an alternative to the standard model of cosmology than is "accidental supernatural creation" as described by many pagan religions. Its a story that no-one who understands where it comes from takes seriously. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let me see if I can understand the Big Bang. Thanks a lot for the magic theory but I'll go with intelligent design. It is more logical. If by more logical you mean something for which there is absolutely no evidence and is entirely based on mythology, wishful thinking, and logical fallacies. Bottom line is "intelligent design": 1) Explains nothing about the universe. 2) Makes no predictions. 3) Is not falsifiable. Its not a theory, its not a hypothesis, its simply a story of "a supernatural magic guy did it because he wanted it this way" As such, "intelligent design" is not an alternative to the standard model of cosmology than is "accidental supernatural creation" as described by many pagan religions. Its a story that no-one who understands where it comes from takes seriously. Don't stop him, he's on a roll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:08:06 PM EDT
[#14]
So instead of a big bang it was just a little fart or was it God just shooting pool? At the end of the day it is all conjecture and pretty much useless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:15:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So instead of a big bang it was just a little fart or was it God just shooting pool? At the end of the day it is all conjecture and pretty much useless. We've made great strides in understanding what the universe looks like and how things behave, so much so that we now have things like GPS and nuclear reactors. Our models of the universe don't have to be perfect to be very very accurate for practical purposes. Understanding the origins of the universe and large scale cosmology can help us determine how well our locally accurate models (aka, models that we use for things on earth, such as relativity and quantum physics) fit with what we see on the large scale. This is the only way to improve our models beyond day to day practical engineering applications. If we didn't do this type of investigation we'd have ignored the problems with understanding the solar system with Newtonian physics and said "its good enough" and never would have advanced beyond it. Our current models of physics seem to be pretty good at making predictions, but have some problems in extreme situations. The only way we can hope to improve them is looking at situations where they break down. Places like black holes and the beginning of the universe are such situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:17:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does this mean that all the smarter-than-thou people who believed in the BB are actually stupid, easily-duped brain-dead morons who clutch desperately at whatever "truth" is handed down to them from On High by crazy people wearing funny hats? Because I want to party with THOSE guys!  Yes, they're called "Liberals." Avoid them at all costs. They take far more than they give. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:18:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. You misrepresent the discussion. 2. There is no dispute. Science is discovery of God IMO, it's one and the same. The issue is when people claim the science is settled in regards to there not being a God; when in fact it isn't, even from a purely atheistic POV. There are no doubt people try to use "science" to support or advance some kinds of agendas. They may even be among the ranks of "scientists", including those who say that science has proven or dis-proven God. The thing is that science, by definition, has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is just our way of understanding the physical world and nature's playbook. Science does not have the means or as its stated goal to measure God. So I think it's kind of stupid either way for people to say that they have "scientific proof of the existence of god" as if we can catch god with his pants down when he does not want to be found and he insists on faith anyway; just as it's silly and lame to say that science has proven that god doesn't exist when such a thing is outside the means, the abilities and scope of science. Probably, the best statement we could make is that the sum total of your experiences has convinced you God exists while others see no evidence to warrant that conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:22:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does this mean that all the smarter-than-thou people who believed in the BB are actually stupid, easily-duped brain-dead morons who clutch desperately at whatever "truth" is handed down to them from On High by crazy people wearing funny hats? Because I want to party with THOSE guys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:22:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So instead of a big bang it was just a little fart or was it God just shooting pool? At the end of the day it is all conjecture and pretty much useless. Pretty Much |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:27:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously the article didn't explain much, but how does it get rid of dark matter? I mean, wouldn't the galactic velocity problem still exist with or without a singularity? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah we did this one, although the other thread title was so full of derp it really brought out the crazies. As I currently understand this all it does is solve a few mathematical problems at once, it doesn't really change the model. If it's true there was no singularity though that means our information horizon may be extended farther than we thought possible, which is interesting. I like this theory a lot because I've never liked the dark matter/energy hypothesis and this does away with them entirely. I mean, wouldn't the galactic velocity problem still exist with or without a singularity? Dark matter/energy are basically a math problem. The universe as we observe it doesn't behave according to physics as we understand it, so we've been using dark matter/energy as placeholders for whatever it is we haven't figured out yet. This new hypothesis apparently solves the problem by changing our understanding of quantum physics. Don't ask me how I haven't looked at the equations or anything but that's how it's being described. As for eliminating the singularity, brane theory sort of does the same thing, and these theories may not be mutually exclusive. All this really does is eliminate the problem of the laws of physics breaking down at the singularity, it doesn't really change the things about the model we actually had a good grasp on. People grabbing on to this as being particularly relevant in an origins debate or evidence for steady state or cyclic models are reading too much into it, but it may in fact be a big breakthrough. It's always exciting when somebody comes up with an idea that seems to eliminate a lot of stuff that makes no sense at the same time, like the discovery of heliocentrism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:35:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dark matter/energy are basically a math problem. The universe as we observe it doesn't behave according to physics as we understand it, so we've been using dark matter/energy as placeholders for whatever it is we haven't figured out yet. This new hypothesis apparently solves the problem by changing our understanding of quantum physics. Don't ask me how I haven't looked at the equations or anything but that's how it's being described. As for eliminating the singularity, brane theory sort of does the same thing, and these theories may not be mutually exclusive. All this really does is eliminate the problem of the laws of physics breaking down at the singularity, it doesn't really change the things about the model we actually had a good grasp on. People grabbing on to this as being particularly relevant in an origins debate or evidence for steady state or cyclic models are reading too much into it, but it may in fact be a big breakthrough. It's always exciting when somebody comes up with an idea that seems to eliminate a lot of stuff that makes no sense at the same time, like the discovery of heliocentrism. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah we did this one, although the other thread title was so full of derp it really brought out the crazies. As I currently understand this all it does is solve a few mathematical problems at once, it doesn't really change the model. If it's true there was no singularity though that means our information horizon may be extended farther than we thought possible, which is interesting. I like this theory a lot because I've never liked the dark matter/energy hypothesis and this does away with them entirely. I mean, wouldn't the galactic velocity problem still exist with or without a singularity? Dark matter/energy are basically a math problem. The universe as we observe it doesn't behave according to physics as we understand it, so we've been using dark matter/energy as placeholders for whatever it is we haven't figured out yet. This new hypothesis apparently solves the problem by changing our understanding of quantum physics. Don't ask me how I haven't looked at the equations or anything but that's how it's being described. As for eliminating the singularity, brane theory sort of does the same thing, and these theories may not be mutually exclusive. All this really does is eliminate the problem of the laws of physics breaking down at the singularity, it doesn't really change the things about the model we actually had a good grasp on. People grabbing on to this as being particularly relevant in an origins debate or evidence for steady state or cyclic models are reading too much into it, but it may in fact be a big breakthrough. It's always exciting when somebody comes up with an idea that seems to eliminate a lot of stuff that makes no sense at the same time, like the discovery of heliocentrism. Regardless, I always assume that one day 200 years from now scientists will be looking back and thinking that quantum physics and relativity are quaint old approximations, suitable for engineering purposes, but not as accurate as the newer models.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:39:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are no doubt people try to use "science" to support or advance some kinds of agendas. They may even be among the ranks of "scientists", including those who say that science has proven or dis-proven God. The thing is that science, by definition, has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is just our way of understanding the physical world and nature's playbook. Science does not have the means or as its stated goal to measure God. So I think it's kind of stupid either way for people to say that they have "scientific proof of the existence of god" as if we can catch god with his pants down when he does not want to be found and he insists on faith anyway; just as it's silly and lame to say that science has proven that god doesn't exist when such a thing is outside the means, the abilities and scope of science. Probably, the best statement we could make is that the sum total of your experiences has convinced you God exists while others see no evidence to warrant that conviction. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1. You misrepresent the discussion. 2. There is no dispute. Science is discovery of God IMO, it's one and the same. The issue is when people claim the science is settled in regards to there not being a God; when in fact it isn't, even from a purely atheistic POV. There are no doubt people try to use "science" to support or advance some kinds of agendas. They may even be among the ranks of "scientists", including those who say that science has proven or dis-proven God. The thing is that science, by definition, has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is just our way of understanding the physical world and nature's playbook. Science does not have the means or as its stated goal to measure God. So I think it's kind of stupid either way for people to say that they have "scientific proof of the existence of god" as if we can catch god with his pants down when he does not want to be found and he insists on faith anyway; just as it's silly and lame to say that science has proven that god doesn't exist when such a thing is outside the means, the abilities and scope of science. Probably, the best statement we could make is that the sum total of your experiences has convinced you God exists while others see no evidence to warrant that conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:43:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The arrogance of man to think that he actually knows anything at all other than that he is wearing pants...is superbly astounding. The beauty is they can't be proven wrong. Or right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 2:44:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The beauty is they can't be proven wrong. Or right. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The arrogance of man to think that he actually knows anything at all other than that he is wearing pants...is superbly astounding. The beauty is they can't be proven wrong. Or right. Proving existing theories wrong is basically what science does best. Its allot easier to poke holes in existing theories than it is to come up with new ones without those holes, and that's why science is a wonderful self correcting mechanism for modeling the universe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 3:12:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anybody really think that the entire universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, was once the size a atom and that it created itself out of nothing and just decided to expand into the universe we know one day? It did all these things in contradiction to the Laws of Physics as we know them. Because if you believe in the Big Bang that is what you believe. You essentially believe in magic. From what I understand of TBBT - and it's a very crude, limited understanding, I admit - , yes, the universe did come from a very small point, perhaps smaller than an atom. It IS plausible the universe suddenly appeared from...nothing. This does not violate any scientific principles, as strange as that sounds. No, it does not violate the laws of physics. If it did, it wouldn't be as widely accepted of a theory as it is. Because a lot of scientists do believe TBBT is plausible. The theory is backed up by physics, I know that's hard to conceive, but it does fit into current scientific models. And here's another weird BB concept: what preceded TBBT? Nothing, because time itself was created during TBB. There was no "before" because time didn't exist. Or so I read somewhere. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that one. Don't look at TBBT as a theory some scientists created from thin air, then put together all of this data to reinforce their theory. Rather, look at it as a bunch of data scientists tried to make sense of, and TBBT was what they arrived at to explain it all. It's what we have for now.That doesn't mean the theory can't be altered or improved upon, or even one day discarded. If you want to look into really bizarre science, check out quantum mechanics. That stuff will blow your mind. eta - K2QB3 said it a lot better than I did. Listen to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 3:38:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it means you didn't comprehend the article, or how science works, or both. That summarizes pretty much every science discussion on ARFCOM ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 3:54:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys come into these threads and preach really hard about how dumb scientists are and how smart you are for believing every word within a 3,000 year old book. This thread had nothing to do with religion. And yet, people came in and wanted to dispute science with religion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The ignorance of the understanding of the Big Bang in this thread is both sad and disturbing. I wonder whether this is a product of poor science teachers or poor understanding by those trying to learn. People clinging to ignorance, because they view science as a threat to religion. I know that you think that is a fact, but I and other Christians most certainly do not "view science as a threat to religion". Nothing is a threat to my religion. You guys come into these threads and preach really hard about how dumb scientists are and how smart you are for believing every word within a 3,000 year old book. This thread had nothing to do with religion. And yet, people came in and wanted to dispute science with religion. "You guys"? I have never said "how dumb scientists are" in one of these threads. You needs to put down the broad brush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:13:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still amazed that people can honestly think that complex things such as the earth and humans just appeared out of thin air 
Believe what you want but to think that we didn't have a creator is willfully ignorant. . This the most absolutely stunning example of irony to which I've ever been witness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:20:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. So, if you know something that wise, then where does that put you? Do you know anything at all or don't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:23:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So its not disputing expansion, just disputing a singularity? Meh, we'll see what predictions it makes and how it can explain things compared to the standard model. Don't read too much into a yahoo news headline, sensational science journalism at its worst. Isn't there already a few other theory's out there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:23:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So never at any point try? I hate posts like this. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The arrogance of man to think that he actually knows anything at all other than that he is wearing pants...is superbly astounding. So never at any point try? I hate posts like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:24:54 PM EDT
[#32]
There are a lot of dickheads in this thread.
What this news tells us is simply that the universe's origins cannot be presently explained with any degree of authority. Those with faith will use this to cement their belief that a personal and omnipotent God is the source of all of reality. Those without faith will probably be a little less emphatic that the Big Bang is their catch-all explanation for our origins. Nothing really changes since empiricism fails to adequately provide answers for us. Moreover, empiricism will probably always fail to settle the argument since the human brain will never be able to truly comprehend the nature of existence without a First Cause. Faith in an omnipotent God, however, can bypass the paradoxical nature of the existence of existence, as an omnipotent God would be free from the operating within the physical constraints of the universe. God is God and we aren't capable of understanding how it all works, using that philosophy. I personally think the right approach is to refrain from calling ANYONE an idiot because no one has given us definitive answers on either side. In this day and age, faith isn't restraining scientific advancement. Scientific advancement is being bogged down with quasi-religious dogmatism from scientists, as well as the creeping growth of this mindlessness we call 21st century culture. Free-Shit is more of a threat to our continued scientific advancement than Evangelicalism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:26:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Science is settled bro. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But we cant dare question global warming, |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:27:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still amazed that people can honestly think that complex things such as the earth and humans just appeared out of thin air
Believe what you want but to think that we didn't have a creator is willfully ignorant. . Huh? 
Oh, I see your confusion. The thin air thing is what you believe. Not me. I can see how you would confuse yourself for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:34:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Universe is truly enormous, and yet it's only a part of the tree of Yggdrasil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:35:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Indeed. So much blah blah Scientist this or that. Slightly better than click bait. Isn't there already a few other theory's out there? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So its not disputing expansion, just disputing a singularity? Meh, we'll see what predictions it makes and how it can explain things compared to the standard model. Don't read too much into a yahoo news headline, sensational science journalism at its worst. Isn't there already a few other theory's out there? The problem is verifiable predictions, or the lack there of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:36:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Everything else we have observed has a beginning and an end.
It is likely that the universe also follows this behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:37:07 PM EDT
[#38]
I can predictably verify that this thread will be full of asshattery and self-righteous shitbirds on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:37:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: shut up about that one eyed character will you? what has he done recently? how did he get so famous just for hanging around upside down? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Universe is truly enormous, and yet it's only a part of the tree of Yggdrasil. The roots of Yggdrasil are unending and without limit, beyond all understanding, even the knowledge of the Allfather. Ginnungagap as the beginning of everything is a falsehood. shut up about that one eyed character will you? what has he done recently? how did he get so famous just for hanging around upside down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:42:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So give up? Its those types of people that keep the ball rolling. Protip: Humans learn more from failure than they do a quick success. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: --- Snip --- I have been saying this for a long long time, and im an Atheist. the Big Bang has been like a science religion for too long. It far more compelling to simply understand that the universe exists and has always existed.. and theists are like "woah, but it had to be created" and then you say "so where did God come from" and they're like "but he always existed".. yeah.. Im sticking with universe always existed... I think the real problem is some have too much pride to simply say "I Don't Know" (and nobody really does). So give up? Its those types of people that keep the ball rolling. Protip: Humans learn more from failure than they do a quick success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:44:05 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huh? Oh, I see your confusion. The thin air thing is what you believe. Not me. I can see how you would confuse yourself for me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm still amazed that people can honestly think that complex things such as the earth and humans just appeared out of thin air Believe what you want but to think that we didn't have a creator is willfully ignorant. . Huh? Oh, I see your confusion. The thin air thing is what you believe. Not me. I can see how you would confuse yourself for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:48:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's only a model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:49:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. It IS plausible the universe suddenly appeared from...nothing. . Sure thing, Sport. It is also just as "plausible" that the universe sits on the back of a giant tortoise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:51:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are a lot of dickheads in this thread. What this news tells us is simply that the universe's origins cannot be presently explained with any degree of authority. Those with faith will use this to cement their belief that a personal and omnipotent God is the source of all of reality. Those without faith will probably be a little less emphatic that the Big Bang is their catch-all explanation for our origins. Nothing really changes since empiricism fails to adequately provide answers for us. Moreover, empiricism will probably always fail to settle the argument since the human brain will never be able to truly comprehend the nature of existence without a First Cause. Faith in an omnipotent God, however, can bypass the paradoxical nature of the existence of existence, as an omnipotent God would be free from the operating within the physical constraints of the universe. God is God and we aren't capable of understanding how it all works, using that philosophy. I personally think the right approach is to refrain from calling ANYONE an idiot because no one has given us definitive answers on either side. In this day and age, faith isn't restraining scientific advancement. Scientific advancement is being bogged down with quasi-religious dogmatism from scientists, as well as the creeping growth of this mindlessness we call 21st century culture. Free-Shit is more of a threat to our continued scientific advancement than Evangelicalism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:53:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You see any Frost Giants around? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Universe is truly enormous, and yet it's only a part of the tree of Yggdrasil. The roots of Yggdrasil are unending and without limit, beyond all understanding, even the knowledge of the Allfather. Ginnungagap as the beginning of everything is a falsehood. shut up about that one eyed character will you? what has he done recently? how did he get so famous just for hanging around upside down? According to Odin, at the end of the world, the ever shrinking band of good strong men will be overwhelmed by the massive horde of jealous evildoers, and then all that is known will be consumed by fire. Sound familiar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:56:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are a lot of dickheads in this thread. What this news tells us is simply that the universe's origins cannot be presently explained with any degree of authority. Those with faith will use this to cement their belief that a personal and omnipotent God is the source of all of reality. Those without faith will probably be a little less emphatic that the Big Bang is their catch-all explanation for our origins. Nothing really changes since empiricism fails to adequately provide answers for us. Moreover, empiricism will probably always fail to settle the argument since the human brain will never be able to truly comprehend the nature of existence without a First Cause. Faith in an omnipotent God, however, can bypass the paradoxical nature of the existence of existence, as an omnipotent God would be free from the operating within the physical constraints of the universe. God is God and we aren't capable of understanding how it all works, using that philosophy. I personally think the right approach is to refrain from calling ANYONE an idiot because no one has given us definitive answers on either side. In this day and age, faith isn't restraining scientific advancement. Scientific advancement is being bogged down with quasi-religious dogmatism from scientists, as well as the creeping growth of this mindlessness we call 21st century culture. Free-Shit is more of a threat to our continued scientific advancement than Evangelicalism. We have no idea what this universe is all about. As we advance in science we get better at defining what we can observe but that does not explain the existence of the universe. I suspect we will die out as a species before we understand the forces that created the universe but that doesn't stop us from coming up with all kinds of theories in the meantime. I believe the universe is far more complex than we can ever imagine and that we will never really understand it. I believe there is an intelligent design to our existence but I can't define it out of the context of my faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 4:59:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Elements cannot form from nothing, there is a beginning for everything.
Sub atomic particles don't just form from emptiness. Fact is no one knows, no one ever will know how it all came about. Anything else is just a guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 5:00:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Big bang birth or not http://vocaroo.com/i/s1RxqKXL0V7N
British agnostics Knight & Butler http://vocaroo.com/i/s0tZiaPdNGgr Earth & moon; Hubble telescope crisp images http://vocaroo.com/i/s1iFlqgzX7S3 Mapping night sky galaxies anti-clockwise http://vocaroo.com/i/s0D6ATQpYQGT Supernova remnants http://vocaroo.com/i/s13JtvMOJLAj Russell Humphreys' time dilation http://vocaroo.com/i/s1wyBr0OUZ6F |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 5:02:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And critics of science love to do what you just did: Make up strawmen and attack them. As usual this tactic is very unimpressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every scientific theory about the beginning of the universe is just that, a theory, nothing more, nothing less. The big bang theory as an explanation for the origin of the universe is not terribly convincing from a logical perspective. It's not terribly convincing as a theory for the current state of the universe either. ETA: Defenders of the current orthodoxy love to do what you just did. The pattern is something like this: Skeptic: I'm not sure about this theory because it dovetails rather poorly with this observable fact. Defender: The theory doesn't address that fact! Skeptic: To the discredit of the theory... Defender: You fail to understand the theory. Skeptic: The theory fails to impress. Defender: You fail to impress! As usual this tactic is very unimpressive. You insinuating that I am a critic of science is the strawman. Your equivocation of a particular theory with all of science is another strawman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 5:04:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Sometimes when I think about things like this my mind seems to leave my body in search of understanding. Then it comes back and the realization of how truly small and finite my life is sends panic to my chest.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
