A flat earth and the geocentric model never had conclusive evidence behind them. The big bang does.KIA&SS wrote:
May I point out that people believing the world was flat was once widely accepted by the science community and world? May I point out that the earth being the center of the galaxy was once widely accepted by the scientific community and world?
And today's scientific community is much different than the one you're referencing.
That has nothing to do with what I said.KIA&SS wrote:
I believe I told everyone to find their own sources a couple of times in my post.
My point is more cosmologists and astrophysicists accept the evidence for the big bang.KIA&SS wrote:
Exactly. None of them are as widely accepted. (AKA more people believe the big bang.)
And your point is?
The big bang doesn't need to be fact for it to be a valid explanation of how the universe got to its present state.KIA&SS wrote:
So they refuted a couple of the arguments. (I read the article before I posted it.) And your point is? It still did not prove that the big bang was anything more then a theory, or that it is fact.
Which means the big bang uses both scientific fact and the scientific method.KIA&SS wrote:
Through logical scientific experimentation. Through the use of true science fact and scientific method.
That's not what I said, that's what your own article said. What's the point of supplying me with an article if you don't read it yourself?KIA&SS wrote:
I love how you say, "many have been proven" but you don't state which ones.
People still reject the fact that the earth is a sphere. By your logic, that means it's not provable.KIA&SS wrote:
The meteor has crater. The big bang does not even have that. The big bang is not obvious it is just... how did you say it? The most widely accepted.
If the big bang was provable there would be no need to accept it or reject it.
No, they claim it to be a valid explanation of how our universe came to its current state.KIA&SS wrote:
But scientist don't claim the big bang as fact. They just claim it as an effort to explain. They don't even claim it is true. They claim it is an attempt, a theory.
It is a religious push to teach a specific belief in schools.
What scientists view as a theory and what you think a theory is are two, very different things.
You see a theory as a bunch of randomly collected thoughts that were thrown together. Scientists see a theory as something that has been tested, observed, and well-substantiated using the scientific method. The big bang is the latter.
No.KIA&SS wrote:
How am I stretching it? Does the big bang fit the definition or does it not?
You could fit any belief into that definition. I guess most pilots are part of Bernoulli's religion, because most believe in Bernoulli's principle of flight. Not FACT of flight, principle of flight.KIA&SS wrote:
Let me point out right here that Buddhist do not believe in god and therefore do not necessarily believe in creation either.
The site is dedicated to the existence of God.KIA&SS wrote:
I suggest everyone click the link themselves and make there own deductions about who wrote it. (No where does it claim a creation writer, in fact the whole site if you click on science has various view points.)
Which is an unanswered question, not evidence against the big bang. If we didn't accept anything simply because we didn't have all the answers, then science would be useless.KIA&SS wrote:
The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
You mean to tell me that's there's debate within the scientific community? No way!!KIA&SS wrote:
The idea that the universe as we know it was born in a split second of exponential growth is cosmological gospel. But no one can agree on a single version of the theory called inflation. In fact, there now exist so many approaches, with such a wide range of predictions, that a few cosmologists have suggested inflation could never be disproved by observation.
Which Way to the Big Bang?
By the way, scientists in this case aren't disagreeing with the concept of the big bang as a whole. They're disagreeing about a specific aspect of the big bang. This is how a theory gains more validity and traction. Through debate and testing.
You're saying the big bang deals with botany?KIA&SS wrote:
Yes, and?
I know what faith means. And belief in the big bang isn't based off of faith, because there is proof of it.KIA&SS wrote:
Maybe you should learn it.
They're not reputable because they're written by people with a heavily biased agenda.KIA&SS wrote:
Which one?
And why don't you find the others reputable?
Could it be because their content simply doesn't line up with your beliefs?
Isn't that what some people say creationists do, ignore the facts that don't fit into their belief?
But we can't see the actual event, or observe the event itself. Which is what you've been raving about the last ten posts.KIA&SS wrote:
It has a hole in the ground and if we could dig down far enough we would find the rock. Which would be the observable proof.
We can observe evidence that is left over from the event, just as we can observe evidence that the big bang left over.
You can't observe an event that took place billions of years ago. It's Not Possible.KIA&SS wrote:
Who has observed the big bang? No one.
That does not mean we cannot find evidence of it. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that observations are limited to high definition video's of the event in question.
Because you don't understand the basic concept of a scientific theory.KIA&SS wrote:
How so? Since I seem to be the only one here trying to get it out.
I look at the sides who have no bias.KIA&SS wrote:
Or are you folks so religious that you only look at one side of the battle?
Do you even read the sources you give me? I wasn't talking about Astronomy Magazine, because they're not the ones who said "If the universe is 4.5 billions years old."KIA&SS wrote:
So... Astronomy Magazine, the worlds best selling astronomy magazine isn't reputable enough for you?
Read your sources before you reply and waste my time.
You're red herring. Again.KIA&SS wrote:
And your assuming the big bang.
You're not fooling anybody, and it was a pathetic attempt to begin with.KIA&SS wrote:
I haven't said what I am.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]