Tennessee passes bill allowing bullying to other LGBT students

[SeventhSandwich]

Either that or if its observable.

I don't think you know what the word 'observable' means.

Just to clarify, you don't necessarily need to observe things with your eyes and ears. You can use instruments to observe things too far away or too small for your eyes to do the work.

Germs are observable. You can't see them with your eyes, but using a microscope you can still observe their shape and size the same way you could if they were much larger.

[Ad Bot]

[Acerblock]

This bill is really bad news. Why would they allow devote Christians to shove their beliefs and hatred down LGBT students' throats?

[SeventhSandwich]

This bill is really bad news. Why would they allow devote Christians shove their beliefs and hate down LGBT students' throats?

Because Tennessee

[Doomonkey]

Wrong, see my above two examples. There are more where those came from. "Could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" is unscientific because it implies scientists are doing guesswork and sticking with a conclusion that has no supporting evidence.

I wasn't saying there aren't current ways to disprove the Big Bang.... I am not wrong.

There is no implication of guesswork here.

[Lockebox]

Yes, but at least we know they are there and can see what they do.

But how does this help me believe that traces of radiation came from the "big bang" assuming it exists actually came from the big bang, when in fact its possible it didn't?

I can't disprove the big bang either, but its pretty much being the same how i cant prove a God exists

You're telling me that the scientific method is based on "faith" which is what a Christian bases his/her beliefs on. And that doesn't cut it.

[Acerblock]

Because Tennessee

and america.

[SeventhSandwich]

But how does this help me believe that traces of radiation came from the "big bang" assuming it exists actually came from the big bang, when in fact its possible it didn't?

I think I've said this before but no matter how much evidence we have, it's /always/ possible it didn't. Any explanation is uncertain just by the nature of how explanations work. There's lots of evidence for how the Big Bang occurred. The CMBR is just one notable example of how you can observe the Big Bang without actually having been there.

[Lockebox]

There's lots of evidence for how the Big Bang occurred. The CMBR is just one notable example of how you can observe the Big Bang without actually having been there.

Evidence is something that is proven solid. Your evidence is assumption, the CMBR is hardly eye opening if you know its possibly not from the big bang. It could be the byproduct of something else just as well.

[SeventhSandwich]

I can't disprove the big bang either, but its pretty much being the same how i cant prove a God exists

No it's not. There's not some black-and-white dichotomy between "things that are proven true" and "things based on faith". We have /confidence/ for a reason. If you stick different colored disks into a black opaque bag and randomly select one, you can be /confident/ that you won't pull out a burrito because it's never been observed that putting the right number and color of disks into a bag makes a burrito, and all other data shows that when pulling objects out of bags of disks, you get disks.

You're telling me that the scientific method is based on "faith" which is what a Christian bases his/her beliefs on. And that doesn't cut it.

No I'm telling you that the scientific method is based on confidence. Here's the difference:

Confidence is saying that "The changes in genetic frequency over time in a population of organisms is probably caused by the natural selection of traits beneficial to an organism's fitness because it's been evident through the fossil record/endogenous retroviruses/microevolution/etc"

Faith is saying "Humans are on earth because... forget you God did it"

[Acerblock]

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_bigbang.html

The CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons - the negatively charged parts of atoms.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

[Mega-Bear]

I wasn't saying there aren't current ways to disprove the Big Bang.... I am not wrong.

You said:

The concept is more of "could this potentially one day be disproven/tested" more than "can it currently be disproven/tested."

The former mindset is NOT correct. The latter is.

But how does this help me believe that traces of radiation came from the "big bang" assuming it exists actually came from the big bang, when in fact its possible it didn't?

Because the big bang is what makes the most sense when you look at cosmic background radiation. Sure, there could have been another source, but the big bang is a very very well supported theory and it's stupid to say "yeah well even though all evidence points to it I'm just gonna say no."

I can't disprove the big bang either, but its pretty much being the same how i cant prove a God exists

You missed my post:

1. Provide a contradiction of Hubble's law. This would support the idea of a steady-state universe.
2. Provide a contradiction of Olbers's Paradox. A dark night sky supports the idea of an expanding universe.

You're telling me that the scientific method is based on "faith" which is what a Christian bases his/her beliefs on. And that doesn't cut it.

No, not at all. It's based on the exact opposite of faith.

The scientific method only accepts ideas that have been scrutinized and peer reviewed. If a new piece of science emerges that contradicts other science, one of them must be wrong. So the incorrect one is weeded out and removed. There is no faith whatsoever. Only ideas that make sense (aka, have more supporting evidence) remain in place.

Evidence is something that is proven solid. Your evidence is assumption, the CMBR is hardly eye opening if you know its possibly not from the big bang. It could be the byproduct of something else just as well.

No, evidence is information. All our information regarding CMBR suggests that the big bang occured.

We use evidence to arrive at conclusions. Using CMBR and plenty of other cosmological/astronomical evidence, we arrived at the conclusion that makes the most sense when you take into account all of humanity's understanding of the universe: the big bang.

[Decepticon]

What the actual forget lmfao

So happy there is no religion bullstuff like this in germany

*cough*cantevenshowaswastikaingames*cough*

[Night Fox]

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.
2. Provide a contradiction of Olbers's Paradox. A dark night sky supports the idea of an expanding 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
and that paradox is the same thing, except I'm not sure how it makes a lot of sense in the first place, because it seems to imply that we can see every star in the universe in our line of sight when we look a the sky, already
the hubble deep field looks like empty black space from our point of view from the earth, but in the image taken by the satellite, we can clearly see that there are actually things there, that we can't see with the naked eye
so unless I'm missing something...

[Caribou]

What gets me is, how can any authority rule out that any form of bullying should be accepted.

[Doomonkey]

You said:

The former mindset is NOT correct. The latter is.

I'll give you a tie here. If you look up the concept of scientific testability with regard to hypotheses, you will find that some sources say it must be currently testable, some sources say you must actually have the means to test it yourself for it to be scientific, while others say it must be theoretically testable.

I had been told that theoretically testable was the standard for testability, clearly you learned something different, and it doesn't seem like there is a clear right answer.