Big Bang Theory of the Universe's Begining Thrown Into Question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Like the Bible?

Sorry... sorry... couldn't resist.

---

Jerk. :p

In all seriousness, that's what I'm trying to show. Your scientific assumptions are as good as my Bible. So, indeed, yes. Exactly like the Bible. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Jerk. :p

In all seriousness, that's what I'm trying to show. Your scientific assumptions are as good as my Bible. So, indeed, yes. Exactly like the Bible. :p

---

Yes, but we're willing to admit we could be completely wrong about said assumptions if they are realistically disproven.

Can you say the same? :\

Quote:

---

I can only imagine you think this is true of relegion, then?

---

I was speaking about faith and said nothing of religion. However, I will say that I believe that of anyone that believes in something based on faith, which includes quite a bit of religious people, and at the same time I've seen attempts at logical arguments being applied to religion so I wouldn't apply it to "religion" generally as you imagined.

I believe I worded it awkwardly though. I didn't mean that people believe in religion because they want to believe in religion. I meant that if its based on faith, no real argument exists other than the conclusion thats been drawn, by definition. So the conclusion is all that can serve as the argument. The conclusion is forced to support itself, and so a faith based belief is one that is believed in for the sake of itself(what I was actually getting at) or is entirely dependent on something else sufficiently detached from reason - which could be a million things and none of the million would have priority over any of the others so I just ignore that whole set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cap'n Vege

But that all depends on the premises of the argument in question. For example, one of the premises of evolutionism, as well as the Big Bang, is/can be carbon 14 dating.

---

Since when was carbon 14 the premise of evolution and the big bang theory?

Evolution is based on the observation of biological principals which can't be easily disproven (genetics), carbon 14 dating is only used to "prove" the fossil record to bring the theory well within reasonable doubt.

Carbon 14 dating has fuck all to do with the big bang theory. You can only use it to date once living things. The big bang theory is based on physics caclulations, the observation of electromagnetic radiation from the initial expansion that it is bouncing around the universe, and the red shift of other stars.

As others have said, we're not saying our beliefs are concrete. Some theories are completely dismissed. Did you know that a long time ago some people actually thought that the sun revolved around the earth?
You can totally read about it in the Bible!

Postulate #1 of Special Relativity: The velocity of light is the same in empty space for ALL observers.

The velocity of light can therefore not change in time, unless special relativity is wrong. Hey, Newton was.

Quote:

---

Quantum Physics is based on almost as much wide speculation as religion, almost.

---

Bullshit. First off Quatam Mechanics does not tell anybody what really happens at small scales, it is a model and is only useful for predicting outcomes. It is based on experement and observation of facts, someting rmany religions have no base in, observed reality.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND what happens at that small a scale/high an energy level. Look up the Hisenberg Uncertanty Principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Since when was carbon 14 the premise of evolution and the big bang theory?

Evolution is based on the observation of biological principals which can't be easily disproven (genetics), carbon 14 dating is only used to "prove" the fossil record to bring the theory well within reasonable doubt.

Carbon 14 dating has fuck all to do with the big bang theory. You can only use it to date once living things. The big bang theory is based on physics caclulations, the observation of electromagnetic radiation from the initial expansion that it is bouncing around the universe, and the red shift of other stars.

As others have said, we're not saying our beliefs are concrete. Some theories are completely dismissed. Did you know that a long time ago some people actually thought that the sun revolved around the earth?
You can totally read about it in the Bible!

---

OK, you got me. It's really more of a tributary than an honest to goodness reason. The angle I was hitting at it was that the whole crux of carbon 14 dating has to do with half-lifes, and the measurement thereof. Since things can be carbon 14 dated to as far back as 70,000 years, it makes an intelligent attempt at nullifying the "young Earth" belief many Christians hold to, thus contributing to the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, all be it indirectly.

I should have picked a better premise. Sorry. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

I was speaking about faith and said nothing of religion. However, I will say that I believe that of anyone that believes in something based on faith, which includes quite a bit of religious people, and at the same time I've seen attempts at logical arguments being applied to religion so I wouldn't apply it to "religion" generally as you imagined.

I believe I worded it awkwardly though. I didn't mean that people believe in religion because they want to believe in religion. I meant that if its based on faith, no real argument exists other than the conclusion thats been drawn, by definition. So the conclusion is all that can serve as the argument. The conclusion is forced to support itself, and so a faith based belief is one that is believed in for the sake of itself(what I was actually getting at) or is entirely dependent on something else sufficiently detached from reason - which could be a million things and none of the million would have priority over any of the others so I just ignore that whole set.

---

Ah, now I see. Thank you for the clarification.

You see, the thing is not that the conclusion supports itself, but that the whole Christian argument need reference an absolute authority. It is this authority that all Christian arguemnts stem from, not the conclusions of said arguments.

What authority does science have, but the authority it imposses upon itself? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Yes, but we're willing to admit we could be completely wrong about said assumptions if they are realistically disproven.

Can you say the same? :\

---

You have nothing to lose if you are wrong. I am the most wretched form of life on this green Earth if I am wrong.

So, no. Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoboruWataya

Postulate #1 of Special Relativity: The velocity of light is the same in empty space for ALL observers.

The velocity of light can therefore not change in time, unless special relativity is wrong. Hey, Newton was.

---

You see? This is the exact kind of thing I was talking about. Special Relativity is accepted only because it is necessary for all things that follow, and not because it has been proven in any capacity whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Yes, but we're willing to admit we could be completely wrong about said assumptions if they are realistically disproven.

---

thats not entirely true. the scientific community has been known in the past to bury fact to uphold a current view of things or way of thinking, who's to say that its not happening right now?