2986
Off Topic / Re: Car thread
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:57:26 PM »
how much was it?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
That's a scientific theory. That's what I've been saying this whole time. You and I are on the same page.the only reason I'm even in this argument is because I disagreed with someone saying creationism is false
Have you been paying attention to any of what Sandwich and I have been posting for the past seven pages?unless you quoted me, no
Of course an explosion isn't the only thing that could cause the universe to expand. But when you couple Hubble's law with all of our cosmological knowledge, the big bang is the best explanation for the source of expansion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"an explosions isn't the only thing that can cause that"
No loving stuff. But it's the best explanation based on what we know about the universe.
The Big Bang Theory is essentially a model that predicts the history of how the Universe formed, and it doesn't necessarily say that an /explosion/ caused an expansion, since that means a very specific thing in terms of gas pressure and chemical reaction. All the Big Bang Theory suggests is that the Universe has been expanding. Hubble's Law is a testament to the predictive qualities of the model.thank you for not being a jerk about it
The concept is more of "could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" more than "can it currently be disproven/tested."yeah, I don't see how you could possibly prove, ever, that an explosion didn't happen billions of years ago that filled the universe with matter and whatever
Yeah, but you also come from a background of having zero cosmological experience.what are you talking about?
1. Provide a contradiction of Hubble's law. This would support the idea of a steady-state universe.all hubble's law says is that everything is moving away from us. an explosions isn't the only thing that can cause that
2. Provide a contradiction of Olbers's Paradox. A dark night sky supports the idea of an expanding universe.
You're right, it is biased. Towards science.it's not science if it's biased ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And that's why it can't be passed off as truth. It is unfalsifiable. Science only accepts ideas that can be proven wrong in some way. If it can't be proven wrong, it's a supernatural explanation and isn't real science.I don't see any way to prove the big bang wrong?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionsomehow I doubt that website is unbiased. wikipedia is certainly better
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I didn't search hard enough. I was busy with something else.no I mean that none of that is CPR
I don't 'beleive'[sic] in evolution.wow, okay, that's what we're doing now? whining about typos? you do believe in it though. statistics are enough of a reason to believe that something made it the way it was
That's not creationism, that's deism.okay, I see. but I'm almost entirely sure that he meant such a thing, too. and besides, I could also say that however many thousands of years ago, some being created everything, and then gave the celestial bodies all that movement and stuff that we use as evidence for the big bang. can't prove that wrong either
Multiple extremely outdated ideas?before the big bang, an all-powerful being created that... thing, whatever it was, that would become the big bang
I like it, but the mirrors are way too big, and shaped weird
Sorry, *one of them is backed by knowledge, the other is backed by a two-thousand year old bookTIL christianity = all creationism