Dunno about everyone else, but to me any sort of theory named "big bang" intuitively sounds like baloney.
If they'd called it the "spontaneous audible expansion" theory or something, more people would be inclined to believe it.
Dunno about everyone else, but to me any sort of theory named "big bang" intuitively sounds like baloney.
If they'd called it the "spontaneous audible expansion" theory or something, more people would be inclined to believe it.
Remember: scientists are dorks.
The Horrendous Space Kablooie!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Remember: they make more money than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
they also work a whole lot harder -_o
and I really like "Horrendous Space Kablooie"
IRT Topic:
Well, VSL (NERD ALERT! :nod: ) would account for discrepancies in the space-time continuum. Basically, Variable Speed of Light theory states that light moves at different speeds at different times throughout the universe. For instance, if light used to move more quickly back in the day, we'd expect more growth/advancement b/c more time passed during those days...reinforcing evolution...
However, I think both Creationists AND Evolutionists should recognize that their positions are ones of faith. Neither creation or evolution can be proven and most of the die-hard adherents (on both sides) take their position of faith (and by that I mean that their position cannot be proven).
Same here. I instantly thought of Hamster Huey.Quote:
and I really like "Horrendous Space Kablooie"
A believe based on a argument is not the same as faith. Its the opposite. Several "proofs" exists for evolution and I'd gather most people that believe in evolution believe in it based on some simplified version of it. The fact that a proof can never be absolutely regarded as an immutable truth doesn't matter and doesn't mean the beliefs of anyone that agrees with it are based on faith.Quote:
(and by that I mean that their position cannot be proven).
The name "Big-bang" actually came from somebody who didn't believe the theory and was making fun of it over the radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Well, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffx
I was just explaining why a term like the "Big Bang" would be generally accepted in the scientific community.
Duh again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
I remeber when I was applying for MIT, there was a pamphlet with a student's thoughts regarding the principles held by those in that university; something about working hard all day and all night and loving it.
Needless to say, I had to turn them down. Sorry, MIT, I'm going to be a homeless bum in Miami.
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. However, when you take a look at the dating process, as well as all of the conjecture involved, it most certainly becomes much more a matter of faith, as the premise of carbon 14 is assumed, and not proven; therefore, the entirety of the aforementioned "argument" is as much a question of faith (that is, how much belief you place in the carbon 14 dating process and it's inherent assumptions, as well as any other premise you care to mention) as creationism is.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo