[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Blaise Russel


Hi. You know the universe?

Yeah?

Well, surprisingly, it contains stuff from, like, before we existed. Oddly enough, we can draw conclusions from this stuff. We can say things like "Billions of years ago, the Earth was really quite hot."

Really quite amazing, isn't it?

No, seriously.

And if you're going to question the validity of scientific analysis and the evidence it gathers for us (as well as the evidence of the *snicker* Bible), then I ask you: why is personal experience - man recording it or seeing it with his own eyes - immune to this inquisition? What's so wondrous about this particular method of learning? Is this some kind of solipsism you're advocating, or something?

It's probably more accurate to think of it as a 'becoming'. The universe became what we see today, as opposed to just 'beginning'.

And, again: not including the standard skeptic's-clause that makes science such a wonderful tool for furthering one's knowledge, we *do* know what happened back then. It was the Big Bang. The whole 'red shift', expanding-universe thing shows us that. The possibility of some entity magicking everything into existence lacks evidence, regardless of your protestations desperately trying to keep the door open. And it lacks support because it is not a scientific notion, but a philosophical one - rooted as it is in transcendentalism and not empiricism.

Do I know the universe? No. Of course not. Do you know it any better than I? Absolutely not.

Do scientists know more about it than us?
Yes.

Do they know how it was created?
No.

Can they guess or speculate how it was created?
Yes.

Does that mean it's right?
No.

Let's look at this from the Big Bang's point of view.

A ball of energy exists, rotating very quickly and is very hot, the size of a vollyball. It contracts, expands, and one day could not hold it's expansion and simply blew up. Kablam. What happens? The universe is made! The explosion shoots out a gazillion miles and makes all the happy little suns and planets and nebula and asteroids and what not. Since explosions make stuff, they also make lifeforms and can turn into bigger lifeforms, that are eventually humans who evolved from Apes. The end.

Do we know if this is true?

Certainly not.

What scientists are looking at they think "Hey, these are the effects from the beginning of time! We know because we can guess!"

Speculation is not law. Guessing is not always true. Estimates are not factual. Theories are not verifiable. For those who think I don't know what a theory is, here is a dictionary definition:

• Abstract reasoning; speculation

So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess. Do I really care how it got here? No. Do I have my own beliefs and my own thoughts on the universe? Certainly. Do I care what yours are? No. Doesnt matter. It's all just one big guess (all of it) so it doesnt really matter. Live in the present, not in the past, and hope for the future.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Sandwich
I'll assume you merely missed that passage...  

Yeah, I kinda glossed over it.

Err... in the original texts, Mr. Hebrew Scholar, the word for "heavens" is "shamayim", which is literally "sky" or "skies", although it is also used to refer to "heaven".

Meh. I guessed, I was wrong.

Still, that creates more problems than it solves. Also lends weight to the Raelian arguments about God.

[.::Tin Can::.]

An0n admitting he was wrong?

It's a sign of the Apocolypse!

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Liberator
Actually that part only shows that the galaxies in question are moving away from us.  It is bias toward the Big Bang that allows you to assume that the BB is the reason they are moving away from us.

I don't know... is it just me? Am I the strange, crazy, lunatic one?

I would have thought galaxies moving through the cosmos away from a single point would be evidence enough for some kind of 'Huge Explosion' - especially since there isn't any evidence for any other kind of explanation. I mean, if there was some kind of detectable 'galactic magnetism' that was pushing the celestial bodies away from one another, yeah, or... hell, I can't even think of other possibilities, because the inspiration doesn't exist in real life! Come on, people!

And the galling thing is... what appears to be a Biblical literalist - someone who has picked up an ideal and is now walking about the world, carrying it under its arm, and desperately trying to make it fit what he sees, denying the validity of the universe itself in order to conform to what somebody said some supreme being said thousands of years ago - is muttering accusations of bias - bias!

I suspect not only does God get pissed off when you walk by a field and don't notice the colour purple in it, He also gets upset when you believe Man's truth, Man's books, above His own creation.

(Hopefully, she'll forgive the butchering, but it suffices.)

[.::Tin Can::.]

Didn't they say that 2% of the universe has been seen? How can we say that this measly 2% means that the entire universe is moving from a single point? We can't. Give it up Blaise, you wan't to cling to something no one really gives a **** about. Im happy being what I am and beliving what I want, not someone telling me Im wrong and his "scientific evidence" (aka, nothing) is superior over everyone elses.

[an0n]

I hope God exists, just to see the look on the faces of the flat-earthers and creationists when he comes down from on high and goes:

"What the ****? Six thousand years? Do you have any goddamn idea how hard it is to will matter into existence? DO YOU?!!?"

[an0n]

Anyone else find it hilarious that Tin Can is using a computer to denounce science?

[.::Tin Can::.]

Im on a computer denouncing the Big Bang Theory. How friggin hillarious. You should be a comedian for pointing that out an0n.

Anyone else find it hillarious that an "admin" doesn't know how to use the edit button?

[Ghostavo]

Tin Can, the remaining percentage is not detected (I think it's more than 2%) but it's effects are felt... this galaxy and many others exist after all... and the galaxies are what led to this theory.

[.::Tin Can::.]

My Jedi Force powers are tingling...

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Let's look at this from the Big Bang's point of view.

Let's not, because you turned it into a horrible mess that's really quite disgusting.

Do we know if this is true?

Certainly not.

We certainly understand your unwitting straw man to be untrue, because it's quite the pile of nonsense.



The distressing thing, Officer Can, is that at some point you might come across the scene of a crime (let us say that it is a rape, for the sake of getting emotional reactions and so on), see a dishevelled woman in rumpled clothing, sobbing uncontrollably for the loss of her sexual control, leaning against an alley wall, clothing torn, dress up about her waist, bruises and scratches all over... see a man pulling up his trousers, his parts still coated in sexual fluids, the nail marks on his cheek, the glare in his eye... see the blood, see the pain, see the anguish and hurt... and say "Hullo? Hullo? Is this a party? Can I join in? Smashing!"

If you really have a problem with inductive thinking, I suggest you hand over your life to someone who could really do a lot with it. There are starving children in Africa who are willing to accept that the transient nature of their existence requires them to use more than their two eyes in figuring things out, you know.

Vacuous nonsense

You really shouldn't have written that. See, you need to be using the SCIENTIFIC definition of 'theory', which is quite different to the common use of the word. For that matter, educate yourself on the scientific meaning of 'law'.

Actually, nevermind, I'll do it myself. A theory is a - to put it poorly - linking of facts to create an understanding of a phenonemon. For example, the theory of gravity links facts about things falling down to create an understanding of the concept of gravity - that is, how and why things fall down. A theory = facts, basically, just connected and written into meaningful form.

A law is an equation. V=IR is a law about the relationship between current, voltage and resistance. Everyone knows E=MC^2. A law of evolution might involve Game Theory. A law = facts, basically, just in mathematical form.

Hence, your blatherings about the semantics of 'Big Bang Theory' are irrelevant, because science speaks a different language to the one you use. Not that the names of things have any relevance to their truth, of course.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Didn't they say that 2% of the universe has been seen? How can we say that this measly 2% means that the entire universe is moving from a single point? We can't. Give it up Blaise, you wan't to cling to something no one really gives a **** about.

In the United States of Jesusland, maybe. Where I'm standing... no.

Im happy being what I am and beliving what I want, not someone telling me Im wrong and his "scientific evidence" (aka, nothing) is superior over everyone elses.

1) If you see this discussion as something that people are trying to 'win', then I hereby forfeit the trophy in your name. Congratulations. You won an argument on the Internet. You earn a very slow handclap.

2) As if (so I suspect you think) the Bible is any better than scientific evidence which, according to you, is "nothing".

I still can't understand why somebody would hold what somebody wrote thousands of years ago, when we lacked intellectual regulation and basic philosophy, over the evidence of one's own senses. It's crazy. It lacks all sense.

[.::Tin Can::.]

1) Find where I wrote "Vacuous nonsense".

2) I'm sure starving children in Africa and Rape have everything to do with the Big Bang Theory.

3) Since when was I pressing that my way of thinking was correct? I didn't. I'm trying to press that both ways of thinking, one from god, one from explosions, cannot be tested and therefor cannot be proven. End of story Blaise. It seems you like to throw in filler **** on rape scenes and starving children in Africa to digress from the real topic:

It's one, big, gigantic, guess.

We THINK the universe was a ball of energy at the center of the universe

We THINK that it exploded creating everything around us

We THINK this, we THINK that, and yet you preach it like it's all fact, it's all based of several writings and factual proof that can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant. That's it.

It's a guess, it will always be a guess, so until then:

Yawn.

[.::Tin Can::.]

And thousands of years ago, don't we read **** that great philosiophical people wrote, mathmatics, factual laws, and historians? I believe we use that knowledge in public thinking.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We THINK the universe was a ball of energy at the center of the universe

Siggified

[.::Tin Can::.]

I should have said "middle of space". Dang-nabbit.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.

So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess.  

Uhh.  I really don't like pointing this out over and over.

A law is imaginary. Laws let us predict how things happen. They don't explain things. Some laws aren't universally applicable and aren't useful in theoretical fields. Newtonian physics doesn't work on extremely large scales (relativity) or extremely small scales (quantum mechanics) but we still use Newtonian laws.

A theory is how it works, supported by math, experimentation, checked, re-checked, submitted to the scientific community, laughed at, looked at again and finally accepted.

We THINK this, we THINK that, and yet you preach it like it's all fact, it's all based of several writings and factual proof that can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant. That's it.

I've said this earlier, but where do you get the notion that things in science must be proved mechanically from axioms like in mathematics?
You have very inconsistent and ambiguous standards for truth and fact.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Perhaps you missed the fact that the sentence was composed of several things besides "testing".

Can be proven? Not yet.

It IS fact? Not yet.

Factual writings on it's factual existance? Not yet.

So then, what part of "Not yet" or "Non-existant" are you having trouble understanding? My definitions of "Law" and "Theory" might not be up to snuff, but I'm sure even the little kids know what the words "No" mean.

EDIT: Goob? No flaming here. No insults, no attacks on one another, simply disagreements. I wouldn't call it a flame war yet, but it could form one.

[Goober5000]

This is going downhill fast.  Tin Can, I highly recommend you read up on the Big Bang, Creaion, Old-Earth Theory, Evolution, etc. before you continue your discussion.  You aren't making any headway and you're self-destructing your own position.

I call thread hijack.  Unless this returns to the original topic I'm leaning heavily toward closing it to avert another flame war.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
1) Find where I wrote "Vacuous nonsense".

A ball of energy exists, rotating very quickly and is very hot, the size of a vollyball. It contracts, expands, and one day could not hold it's expansion and simply blew up. Kablam. What happens? The universe is made! The explosion shoots out a gazillion miles and makes all the happy little suns and planets and nebula and asteroids and what not. Since explosions make stuff, they also make lifeforms and can turn into bigger lifeforms, that are eventually humans who evolved from Apes. The end.

...

Speculation is not law. Guessing is not always true. Estimates are not factual. Theories are not verifiable. For those who think I don't know what a theory is, here is a dictionary definition:


Abstract reasoning; speculation


So that is why it is called the Big Bang Theory and not the Big Bang Law, simply because it is only a human guess. Do I really care how it got here? No. Do I have my own beliefs and my own thoughts on the universe? Certainly. Do I care what yours are? No. Doesnt matter. It's all just one big guess (all of it) so it doesnt really matter. Live in the present, not in the past, and hope for the future.

There. What you wrote was vacuous nonsense. That last sickly little platitude is the worst of all, I think.

2) I'm sure starving children in Africa and Rape have everything to do with the Big Bang Theory.

Let me put it like this:

1) A failure to understand that you can figure things out from the results of said things - little pieces of glass on the ground next to square hole with frame in wall is from a window being broken - is indicative of severe mental defects.

2) I was not there when a tree grew from a sapling into, well, a tree, and neither were you. Yet while I say "Here, a sapling grew into a tree," you would vehemently cry "THAT'S JUST A GUESS!"

3) Since when was I pressing that my way of thinking was correct? I didn't.

Your whining about people telling you you're wrong and your suggestion that somehow "we're all kinda right, in a way" indicated that, rather than an exchange of ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, you saw this as proselytisation, as a Battle of Science Versus Religion (in a sense a false dichotomy to draw, of course).

I'm trying to press that both ways of thinking, one from god, one from explosions, cannot be tested and therefor cannot be proven.

Um, no. The God one is unverifiable, because it rests upon a fundamentally transcendental concept - a supernatural Creator that, by his nature, cannot be seen or otherwise detected.

The 'explosions' one *is* verifiable, that's how it came into being - via evidence. Unlike religion's sad forays into the world of science, it did not start off with people saying 'Explosions did it, explosions did it all' and selecting the evidence to back them up - rather, the other way around.

can be tested and CAN be proven, but it cant.

And thousands of years ago, don't we read **** that great philosiophical people wrote, mathmatics, factual laws, and historians? I believe we use that knowledge in public thinking.

Habla Inglis?

It's a guess, it will always be a guess, so until then:

Yawn.

No. And this is what you don't seem able to understand.

We can work out what happened from what came afterwards. It's that simple. And when we do that, it isn't 'just a guess' - it's 'working out what happened,' something scientists do with a thing called evidence.

Your 'didn't see it, didn't see it, stick the fingers in the ears, NAH NAH NAH' counterargument does not dispel this truth - that when you use evidence to come up with a conclusion, you use evidence to come up with a conclusion.