|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There have been many cases to where carbon dating has not been accurate, which is why we do the test many times. If a rock is dated to be 5 billions years old 5 times and two times is some crazy number, they are not going to take the average of all the numbmers, but the most accurate ones. Its just a matter of how you look at it. This is off-topic, but I can't help replying since you've made significant errors. First, your first sentence has no relationship to the second two. C-14 is not used to date rocks, not is it used to date anything more than about 50,000 years old. Second, you allegation of scientists discarding data is unsupported, insulting, and just plain false. If a rock is dated to be 5 billion years old 5 times and two times is some crazy number, the first thing scientists do is try to figure out which numbers are wrong and why. Whether or not they can figure out what's going on they will report all the numbers, and highlight the conflict if there still is one. You should read "The Age of the Earth", G.Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991. Not only is it an excellent exposition of the evidence for the age of the Earth, it contains many examples of exactly what you claim doesn't happen; scientific publications of anomalous results, and the story of how the anomalies were resolved. When scientists come up with anamolous results, they put them out publically for the entire scientific community to work on. They will not (except for a very few dishonest ones) discard data they don't like. As Isaac Asimov said:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Phatboy writes: I read something somewhere where the author theorized that by definition, the singularity at the start of it all was a realm where everything was in the same place at the same time. That's a good way of putting it. In fact, we can go a step further. By definition, everywhere was the same place. And everything in space was at that same place also, because there was no other place to be. It is space itself that was at one place, not only things in space. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I hate to derail the thread over a semantics issue, but you misunderstand my point. The point is the phrase "defy outliers" is meaningless. One never "defies outliers". Outliers are never "defied". Unless you give the phrase some meaning. You can tell us what you meant by "defying outliers". Then you will be creating a new word (or, at least, a new meaning for an old word). It's allowed, but until you define "defy outliers" you cannot expect the rest of us to understand what it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
lost writes:
Just so you know, at least one person you have conversed with in this thread (who have disagreed with you) is a PhD physicist. Try to guess which one(s). There are more than a few in this thread who hold PhD of some various fields of science. Yes I am not very knowledgable about relativity, but I doubt anyone here on the forums knows the math to general relativity making us all somewhat ignorant to the topic. The number of PhD's on this forum probably equal the number of non-PhD's. So please don't assume the rest of us are dumbasses who have our heads inside our asses all day long.
As for getting off topic I am sorry I am trying to answer all the questions I can but arguing with 5 people at a time is very hard when I only have limited time. I've honestly wanted to post all day today but just couldn't.
You are suffering from what is known here as a pile-on. It usually happens when some smartass who memorized 2 words from his high school text book and thinks he could impress everybody with them makes incredible and rediculous claims. People like to pile on because it's fun, amusing, and easy to. Since you haven't really addressed my points earlier without misrepresenting the material I posted, I think I'll sit out and watch this one from now on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nipok Inactive Member |
What was it about my post that you consider off topic. The initial poster has trouble coming to grips with the physical laws of nature being such an integral part of the essence of the big bang theory. I also have difficulty accepting that the physical laws of nature can be bounded or initiated by an event.
These physical laws of nature being bounded before the big bang and then released appear as such because they are all relative to us and our frame of reference but they are not absolutes. We can tell by observations that all matter in our tiny little known universe, our pocket of space time, once likely originated within a central location of unknown initial density. It may have been a point singularity as the big bang theory predicts or it may have been something else. Collision theory accepts almost all observations as made by the big bang theory but does not agree that there can be a boundary placed on the SpaceTime of our Universe, just the spacetime of our universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Just in case you're still here, you might be interested in reading the news article I'm linking to.
ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5290 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Beat you to it... see Message 35. It's a good news item, and one worth repeating. Gravity Probe B is right now busy testing the same thing to much greater precision. I suspect lost-apathy has probably learned a few things, and should not be assumed to have the same views as expressed early in the thread.
Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-05-2005 02:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Sylas, one of these days...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
What a waste of time and money. If it had been done 10 years earlier maybe not. Perhaps the best example of a mismanaged science program of all time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genghis Khan II Inactive Member |
I didnt look very far down (i have a short attention span) but just one bit of info: In my past experience I have come to realize that explosions destroy order, not create it.
Just a thought
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Welcome to EvC!
In my signature box you will find several links that may help make your stay here more enjoyable. Another issue that may help you navigate our little corner of the web - check on the dates of the threads and/or posts you are replying to. This particular thread has been dormant for almost a year. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
are we talking nuclear explosions? if we are, what do you make of the glass that is created from the blast? isn't that ordered?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
1) Welcome to EvC
2) What explosion are we talking about? This is about the Big Bang, not an explosion. The two have as much in common as penguins and chairs. 3) How much of your past experience do you think is relevant to understanding the deepest mysteries of the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Actually, the thought that the big bang was an 'explosian' is very much wrong.
Thing of it as an expansion, more than explosian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genghis Khan II Inactive Member |
Well thats what my science books sound like. Let me quote one:
From: The Visual Dictionary of the Universe (Eyewittness Visual Dictionarys) DK publishing and all that other stuff) "...The most widely accepted theory about the origin of the Universe is the big bang theory, which states that universe came into being in a huge EXPLOSION-the Big Bang-that took place 10 to 20 billion years ago...." Notice the word "EXPLOSION" (emphasis added) Another book: From: The Nature Company Discoveries Library: Stars and Planets "...Most astronomers believe that between 8 and 16 billion years ago all matter and energy, even space itself, were concentrated in a single point. There was a tremendous EXPLOSION-the Big Bang-and within a few minutes the basic materials of the universe, such as hydrogen and helium, came to be...." Again notice the word "EXPLOSION" (emphasis added) If that is not what most astronomers beleive, considering those are the only books that are in my house which mention the big bang and are not Abeca books, I have a reason to believe that you (evolutionists) believe that the big bang was an explosion. There is no scientific evidence for the big bang. There isnt even stuff like a fossil record or anything to go by. The big bang is simply an idea that arose when people were searching for a theory for the begining of the world. It is just a theory at that. and when you listen to it it sounds rediculous. but that wont change any minds, so carry on
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024