The Scientists Who ‘Proved’ The Big Bang Theory True Admits They May Be Wrong

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Road Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
21,536
Reaction score
6,872
Location
Colorado
Last edited by a moderator:
I mirror RG's sentiments, and agree with the skepticism. I have a hard time buying swirly dust as definitive evidence of the BBT. Or of anything, for that matter, except perhaps a dirty house.

 
one thing for sure, they are probably getting fatty money to look for dust..

I just think its difficult to say "this is it" when no one has ever really seen it before... I would love to know how far the rabbit hole goes though..

 
one thing for sure, they are probably getting fatty money to look for dust..

I just think its difficult to say "this is it" when no one has ever really seen it before... I would love to know how far the rabbit hole goes though..


Morpheus-Red-or-Blue-Pill-the-matrix.jpg


 
It's in our nature to be curious, so if there is a God that created us he is responsible for our curious nature.

I don't buy the religious cop out" you don't need to understand"

 
It's in our nature to be curious, so if there is a God that created us he is responsible for our curious nature.

I don't buy the religious cop out" you don't need to understand"
I don't either, which is why I think we have been up to come up with the theories we have... but we understand science pretty clearly down to some very minute details... exactly how far can we study it before we stop to think about going in the other direction and reaching outward? Not all that many great movements forward in our life times... human morals and laws are hindering the available paths to productive research

 
I believe in intelligent design and admit I cannot prove it. It takes faith. My problem with the other side is that they won't admit that it takes just as much, or more, faith to believe in the BBT. They start with a big assumption and so do I. No one observed the BBT, nor do we know God's birthday. I find it hilarious when they discover a new "fact" about the galaxy. Especially, when that fact is based on moon dust and disproves the last set of "facts" that came out a year before.

 
Oh, and I am all for learning all we can about everything, but lets not confuse, misstate or misuse observations as evidence of what (IMHO) did not happen. It may be a moon fart.

 
Not trying to fuel any fires here but I think science and religion are related. You can have a strong religious faith and still be an excellent scientist. (check history) Goodal noted an important detail in science and religion: It could all be wrong. (I think if I'm wrong it won't really matter much to me at that point being that I'm a God fearing Catholic. Being an atheist and wrong would really suck. They must have some serious conviction...) The faithful scientist will continue to question fact and further the knowledge pool in his field for other scientists to question. Any scientist that claims absolute fact failed as a scientist since it's likely he/she hasn't come up with a way to disprove his/her theory yet...

Enter the theory of Bacon.

My theory is that it always was delicious, is delicious, and forever will be delicious.

I have faith that you will never disprove me.

 
The same people who think it could only be due to the Big Bang theory are just as close minded themselves as they accuse religious people of saying it could only have been created by God

 
But have you tested whether that principle applies to spoiled bacon, LJ?

 
I don't intend a religious implication here I just don't know how you can sit on this planet and look through a telescope and say "That's where all this started" but it fascinates me in a way at the same time.. I am both a fan and a critic ;)


starts a religion vs science debate

:17:

^

|

RG

 
Back
Top