Book of Revelations

[The King]

Reading this thread makes me want to drink heavily.

It makes me want to yawn from the redundancy it carries from past threads.

[racrguy]

Sorry about the late reply, I've been working on the drivetrain of the race car.

Again you cannot pose a effective counter-argument. The Big Bang theory does indeed touch upon from whence the matter that the universe is comprised of came, that being the blind acceptance that one moment there was nothing, and the next there was a "singularity" that magically appeared from this nothing.

You misrepresent yourself by accepting that your beliefs are universal fact.

Again, you do not know what you're talking about. The big bang theory posits that all the matter in the universe already existed and that a rapid expansion (This is the "bang" part of the big bang) occurred.

You're slippin' and/or lying.

Sorry, you're the suck today.

It doesn't agree with your views of the beginning of existence, so it doesn't surprise me that you think I'm slippin' and/or lying.

As it has already been explained to you in much greater detail than I'm about to get into, the Doppler Effect has been used to prove the big bang theory true.

Um, no.


the·o·ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPAnoun,pluralthe·o·ries

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, incontrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Um, yes.

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
plural the·o·ries
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Only if you believe that the beginning of all existence and time also started at that singularity, or if you look for purpose in it. I personally don't see it as anything but the beginning of the observable expansion of the universe.

It's admittedly a nice starting point for metaphysical conversation, and so I'd guess that's why it comes up so often. I've never been able to absolutely stand by atheism because I can't find a reason why anything exists at all. It's a big hole in my psyche, same as anyone, except I don't fill it with any particular belief or religion.

Does anything have to have a reason to exist? Why can things not just exist for no apparent reason? All that atheism stands on is the lack of belief of gods. Not their own belief in place of the god.

[racrguy]

It makes me want to yawn from the redundancy it carries from past threads.

If you want to avoid redundancy quit saying redundant things, then I won't have to repeat myself for the newcomers.

[sc281]

Theory being the operative word.

The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than the observations of effect (The Universe) and a guess about the cause.

The Big Bang Theory cannot be proven to a certainty. No scientist makes that assertion.

Even such "laws" as the Laws of Thermodynamics, are constantly being tested to find out if they are flawed. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, even after constant unsuccessful testing to disprove it, is still considered a just a "Theory", and can be overturned at any time with evidence to the contrary.

Religion is nothing more than the observations of effect (The Universe) and and a guess about the cause.

You speak as if Religion is and absolute fact when you cannot prove what you say. It is a belief, and portraying it as anything more than belief is folly.

Except the big bang theory has been proven. You confuse hypothesis and theory. In laymans terms I will agree with you that theory means idea, but since we're talking about a scientific concept the a theory has been proven, whereas a hypothesis has not.

Um, no.


the·o·ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPAnoun,pluralthe·o·ries

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, incontrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Um, yes.

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
plural the·o·ries
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

.

Are you this retarded on purpose, or are you just dense? Read it again. You just proved your own argument wrong, in your own post, yet you still continue.

Since when does plausible or generally acceptable = proof?


In Layman's terms, you are wrong.

God, you are worse than Mr Majestyk.

If you want to avoid redundancy quit saying redundant things, then I won't have to repeat myself for the newcomers.

How bout you think before you speak? That way only 1 good post comes out instead of 4 idiotic ones.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Does anything have to have a reason to exist? Why can things not just exist for no apparent reason? All that atheism stands on is the lack of belief of gods. Not their own belief in place of the god.

I think the random occurrence of sentient life in our universe is extraordinary; my very ability to question why I exist at all is the one gambit theological ideas have over me. My inability to come to grips with a lack of reason is the only impediment I have in wholly embracing atheism, or rather: completely rejecting all theism, if that suits the definition better.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Except the big bang theory has been proven. You confuse hypothesis and theory. In laymans terms I will agree with you that theory means idea, but since we're talking about a scientific concept the a theory has been proven, whereas a hypothesis has not.

And except for the fact that no, it hasn't. Well, not in the way that they'd like to believe anyway. Why you might ask? Cause they can't figure out why its still expanding. And don't give me that "dark matter" bullshit cause there is exactly as much proof of that as there is that I can shit gold bricks on command. Its something they don't know yet and can't prove, therefor anything else is mere speculation. But I know all of these are mere trivialities to someone like you.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

And except for the fact that no, it hasn't. Well, not in the way that they'd like to believe anyway. Why you might ask? Cause they can't figure out why its still expanding. And don't give me that "dark matter" bullshit cause there is exactly as much proof of that as there is that I can shit gold bricks on command. Its something they don't know yet and can't prove, therefor anything else is mere speculation. But I know all of these are mere trivialities to someone like you.

So, you accept that it is expanding? But, you don't believe that it was proven to be expanding?

The theory is about the expansion of the universe...

[racrguy]

Are you this retarded on purpose, or are you just dense? Read it again. You just proved your own argument wrong, in your own post, yet you still continue.

Since when does plausible or generally acceptable = proof?


In Layman's terms, you are wrong.

God, you are worse than Mr Majestyk.




How bout you think before you speak? That way only 1 good post comes out instead of 4 idiotic ones.

No, I'm not wrong, and I've explained why. You can't seem to grasp the difference between colloquial terms and scientific terms. Learn more, don't look so retarded.

Edit, more specifically, look at definition number 3

[racrguy]

And except for the fact that no, it hasn't. Well, not in the way that they'd like to believe anyway. Why you might ask? Cause they can't figure out why its still expanding. And don't give me that "dark matter" bullshit cause there is exactly as much proof of that as there is that I can shit gold bricks on command. Its something they don't know yet and can't prove, therefor anything else is mere speculation. But I know all of these are mere trivialities to someone like you.

And yet, even scientists still say that this dark matter that you speak of is speculation. That's why they're trying to find it, to prove that it exists so they don't have to speculate anymore. And by speculation I mean "We think it works like this, but we don't have any conclusive data, so it's just a hypothesis." As far as I know there is no "Dark matter theory." Don't be dense and confuse hypotheses and theories.

[racrguy]

I think the random occurrence of sentient life in our universe is extraordinary; my very ability to question why I exist at all is the one gambit theological ideas have over me. My inability to come to grips with a lack of reason is the only impediment I have in wholly embracing atheism, or rather: completely rejecting all theism, if that suits the definition better.

Fair enough, but I will say that if you don't actively believe that there is a god, then you are an atheist, by definition.

[sc281]

No, I'm not wrong, and I've explained why. You can't seem to grasp the difference between colloquial terms and scientific terms. Learn more, don't look so retarded.

Edit, more specifically, look at definition number 3

You've explained why? Where? I see where you say the bid bang theory has been proven, and I have yet to see you post anything at all corroborating your claim.

Show me where the big bang theory has been proven. Please. And since in your infinite intelligence you say Theory is proven fact, show me where String Theory, M theory, or any other theory has been proven?

Do you know anything about physics?

The Universe is expanding, and they think that at some point the universe started at a singularity. Since we have no technology today to see through the primordial cloud to the center of the Universe, it is all guessing.

[racrguy]

You've explained why? Where? I see where you say the bid bang theory has been proven, and I have yet to see you post anything at all corroborating your claim.

Show me where the big bang theory has been proven. Please.

So you've been proven wrong on the definition, so you're trying to switch gears back to the big bang theory. I'll start you out with a wikipedia link, it's up to you to dive further into it than that. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you, I doubt you'll understand the concepts anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[sc281]

So you've been proven wrong on the definition, so you're trying to switch gears back to the big bang theory. I'll start you out with a wikipedia link, it's up to you to dive further into it than that. I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you, I doubt you'll understand the concepts anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Of course I'm going back to big bang theory. That was my original post and your original refutement. In layman's terms, the beginning of the argument.

the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past.
(A blanket statement that doesn't take into account possible multiple inflations/defaltions throughout time)

This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[9][10][11] and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of this theory. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion.

Limited capability tests to prove the beginning of everything? One patch of my lawn is green, and I tested it and indeed it shows green. Without the big picture of seeing the entire lawn (metaphor for the center of the universe in case you didn't follow), I do not have all the information to PROVE my theory.

Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, ]most scientists were fairly convinced

Most and fairly sound alot like proof, right?

by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

I am asking you to show me the proof.

Or you could explain how the steady state theory has been proven wrong. That's in your link too.

Shut me up and show me the proof


Did I mention proof?

[racrguy]

Of course I'm going back to big bang theory. That was my original post and your original refutement. In layman's terms, the beginning of the argument.




I am asking you to show me the proof.

Or you could explain how the steady state theory has been proven wrong. That's in your link too.

Shut me up and show me the proof


Did I mention proof?

Your proof is in the citations below the article. Like I told you earlier, I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you. Again, the big bang theory doesn't take into account what caused the expansion, or where the matter that expanded came from. Only that it did. Jesus christ, it even says that in the part you quoted.

Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

I'd recommend you learn to read and comprehend before you come back to me asking for proof that's right in front of you. Again, wikipedia is a bad place to quote from directly, but it's a good place to start research.

Edit: You do know there were more than one "theories of evolution" when Darwin wrote it, right? Why did the Darwinian model win out? Because it was the most plausible. Lo and behold, it's still correct to this day.

[sc281]

Your proof is in the citations below the article. Like I told you earlier, I'm not going to spoon feed everything to you. Again, the big bang theory doesn't take into account what caused the expansion, or where the matter that expanded came from. Only that it did. Jesus christ, it even says that in the part you quoted.



I'd recommend you learn to read and comprehend before you come back to me asking for proof that's right in front of you. Again, wikipedia is a bad place to quote from directly, but it's a good place to start research.

Edit: You do know there were more than one "theories of evolution" when Darwin wrote it, right? Why did the Darwinian model win out? Because it was the most plausible. Lo and behold, it's still correct to this day.

The crux of my argument is I feel it hasn't been proven even though it is a scientific theory because we cannot even see past the primordial cloud to the center of the universe to know for sure. Lot of evidence to support the claim, but no proof as of yet.

This was a point of contention by theorists, hence "inflation" was added to it to plug that hole.


Yours is that since it is a theory, and a scientific theory is accepted fact, that I am mistaken.

My counter was the Steady State Theory, the theory that the big bang theory debunked, as evidence of my argument that accepted fact has been proven wrong before, and will be again.

This about sums up my interpretation of events. The tangent of the definition of theory was a misstep and misunderstanding on my part, as I was trying to prove my reasoning as to why the big bang theory is a guess.


Having said that, we can revisit this in ten years or so when we have the capacity to see into the cloud and get more information to confirm or deny this theory.