Red1966
Well-Known Member
Nice number you totally made up. Couldn't find anymore citations that prove you wrong? Or did you realize you were just making an ass out of yourself and decided to just start making shit up?
Zero respect
- Thread starter Someacdude
- Start date
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
At this point it becomes hard to believe that you are actually this intellectually bankrupt. The meaning of theory we give is confirmed by multiple scientific bodies and every scientific textbook from high school to universities. It easier to believe you are simply trolling than that you are actually this dedicated to your ego. The fact that all you can offer are personal insults tells us you have exhausted your mediocre reasoning skills and resorted to the level of playground bully.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You keep pretending theory means fact. I don't need to offer anything to prove my point. You guys keep providing it for me. If you want to pretend you have proven your religion to be the true calling, go ahead. But don't expect anyone other than your fellow religious fanatics to take you seriously. Your insults mean nothing to me, because I have no respect for those who try to force their dogma on others.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
You keep pretending we haven't distinguished fact from theory. This is a projection that tells us your brain really does understand its own pretense on some level. "Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others."
Couldn't think of anything relevant to say? Do you suppose obfuscation somehow insulates you from looking foolish? Interesting that you use the word "pretend" again. Meanwhile, it has not escaped our notice that you are desperate to have the Big Bang be just another creation story so that you can continue to believe creationism is plausible. It must be very inconvenient to have beliefs which require you to deny the context of words and disparage accepted theories in order to maintain consonance. Is it easier to pretend "just a theory" is a meaningful statement that it is to admit you are contradicting reality?
Sizing up the intellectual worth of your statements is not insulting you. So far, since you have been shown the scientific context of the word theory, your responses have been an elaboration of "nu uh" and "neener neeener". No one is belittling you, it's just that you are using juvenile rhetoric as defense and then wondering why you are not being respected as an adult. You are presenting yourself as a child, which is no fault of ours. If you allow your intellect to become more encompassing then it wouldn't seem so small.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Who are you kidding? I never promoted creationism. You are. You wrap it in mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science, but its still its still just a modern variation of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." You can't prove your point, so you try to pretend I'm a religious zealot. I'm not. You provide citations that plainly state "theory" is just a working proposition and then try to convince us it says something entirely different. Tell me again how no one is belittling me while calling me a child. Meanwhile, I wait for you to provide another citation that proves you wrong again. Seems like you're a little bitter about making fools of yourselves over and over. I would be, too.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
LOL - Theories use laws, and facts to form an explanation that is supported by the evidence.
You are either the dumbest person ever, or a troll.
Still waiting for you to comment on Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory....
Red1966
Well-Known Member
If you think an plausible explanation equals a proven fact, you have to be very gullible. Why do you want to change the subject so much? This isn't about Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory, its about your creation theory. So how are you any different than the Catholic church persecuting those who would blaspheme their sacred texts? Other than you lack the power to burn at the stake those who disagree with you?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The big bang makes no suggestion of creation. If that's what you're getting out of it, you're sadly mistaken. The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed. Your argument is borderline retarded.
Again, theories use facts, and laws, to tell us 'how' something happened. Do you go to the Dr? Ever had an X-ray? CT scan? Ever taken medicine like anti-biotics? Theories work because their supported by evidence. In the case of the Big Bang, MYRIAD FUCKING EVIDENCE.
You literally said 'you're not webster' (LOL BTW), when we showed you countless articles from scientific publications that clearly differentiate between the laymen use of theory and the scientific usage of theory. Scientific theories work, if they didn't we wouldn't have power plants, medical imaging equipment, GPS satellites, NASA, modern biology, or a plethora of other things.
We treat some scientific theories as fact. Some are more likely to be true than others. String theory is fringe, Big Bang theory, evolution, cell theory, etc., are not.
I don't think you're reading the same thing we're posting.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Creation theory... lol
Nothing is claiming to have been created. How are you not getting this? Your dumbassery is amazing, I thought Nevaeh was obtuse but you take the RIU dunce cap award.
The Big Bang is the best possible explanation we have. It's an explanation based on actual evidence, that by definition, doesn't require faith and isn't a religion.
Please feel free to shut the fuck up.
A sacred text has had no experimentation, and didn't follow the scientific method. It isn't falsifiable; or in other words, it's UNTESTABLE.
The evidence that was predicted to exist with regards to the big bang theory DOES EXIST. They found it! It's tangible.
Religion only needs faith, scientific theory is based on facts, laws, experimentation and constant testing. Both are explanations, one requires tangible things, one does not.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The big bang theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If that is not creation, what is? You support the theory, but state EXACTLY the opposite in the next post>"The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed." I don't think you read the things you are posting. Or don't understand them. But once once again, you argue against your own point..."The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed."
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.
Did that snippet escape that steel trap you call a mind? We don't know what existed pre-big bang but it wasn't 'nothing'. As far as we know matter can't be created or destroyed, and the big bang doesn't contradict that. It only starts explaining after the anomaly expanded. We have no idea what it was made of, or how it came to be.
[video=youtube;SYlIYnKmGV4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4[/video]
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Scant measurements of untested accuracy across millions of light years isn't proof the universe was once only a tiny point of absolutely no volume. You claim the entire universe was brought forth from nothing, yet claim "Nothing is claiming to have been created." (Nice way to mangle the English language there. Even "Nothing" is arguing with you) Your faith is strong, Grasshopper, but your reasoning is weak. I seem to be no more than a bystander here while you guys keep proving yourselves wrong.....You make my points for me and then become enraged about it. This is so easy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So you're not religious and you don't accept the big bang theory, so, what, you've come up with something all by yourself that you believe?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The incredibly detailed images of background microwave radiation support the 'bang' aspect. The red shift supports the fact that everything was once at a focal point. The gravitational waves are a virtual 'echo' of the bang. There is a ton more evidence that all fits together nicely into the Big Bang theory.
I did not claim the universe was brought forth from 'nothing', that's your fallacious argument creeping back in again. No one said that, stop arguing against something no one said. It's a ridiculous straw man argument, and it's the reason you're being treated like an unruly child instead of an adult.
Now pick up your toys and go home.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
" the fact that everything was once at a focal point" =/="I did not claim the universe was brought forth from 'nothing'" Don't even need to comment..lol...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How do you believe the universe began?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to pretend I know the origins of the universe. But I don't go around claiming theory is fact. Doing that, is religion.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The big bang is incredibly likely to have happened. They knew what to look for before they knew it existed, they started looking, and found exactly what they hypothesized would be there. Now, decades later new evidence is still coming in that supports the big bang theory. It would be incredibly unlikely that after all the calculations scientists have done, all the observations they've made, all the predictions that have been successful, that the big bang theory 'is a bust', as you put it.
Why do you disagree with the findings of virtually every astrophysicist in existence? What merit do you posses that would make anyone consider you knowledgeable about astrophysics?
And you're absolutely right; saying everything was once at a focal point is not the same as saying everything came from 'nothing'. For there to be 'nothing' and then 'something' implies a magical force. Science says "there was something, we have no idea what, but it was in one area, and was very hot, and it exploded into what we call the universe."
If you want speculation, look to the big crunch theory, or multiverse theory, or string theory....
Big Big has real evidence, real observations, tangible data, and a tested hypothesis. Is it possible new evidence could overturn these findings? It's possible, but given the sheer amount of data and the predictive power of the theory, it's unlikely new evidence will overturn, but rather strengthen the big bang argument, providing new details and information into what happened.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The cosmic background radiation is literally a picture of the early universe
Light spots are where matter coalesced into stars and galaxies, dark spots are where there is no matter, interstellar space
Do you think they just made this up or what?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
"The big bang is incredibly likely to have happened" tells me I have caused you to begin to doubt your religious convictions. But remember, a point is an imaginary construct that has no surface area and no volume. Literally, nothing. The Big Bang theory postulates the entire universe came from a point, not an area. I guess a good analogy is I may have converted you from a Catholic to a Protestant. I never found fault that the matter in universe may have been much more compact than it is now, but the theory that it all appeared all at once from a single point is just irrational to me. A lot of the data you cite predated the theory and is what prompted the theory. The data does not prove the theory. The theory is an attempt to explain the data. When and if new data is discovered that contradicts the theory, it will be abandoned, at least by most.