liquidat0r wrote:
@Spark: Stop posting in bold, it's annoying
Yessir
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yessir
You can basically generalize that to any major scientific theory that some view as controversial (evolution, GW, plate tectonics and to a lesser extent some of the more popular quantum gravity theories, esp string, LQG) - consensus is not in itself evidence that a theory is sound but it is generally a very predictable byproduct of a theory being sound, since no-one has debunked it in a manner that has been peer-reviewed and demonstrated to be correct and self-consistent.Kmarion wrote:
One youtuber made a good point..If someone had real evidence that actually invalidated the big bang, they'd be either stupid or crazy not to have it published in a well respected peer reviewed publication. refuting such a widely accepted and well supported theory would get them incredible amounts of fame, respect, and grant money for more research. add in the fact that it would revolutionize cosmology and be an incredible help to our understanding of the universe, and i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't publish it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
O dear and what did we ever do before youtube? I know consensus is not enough. Neither is a single unexplained event versus 80+ years of observable and predictable results.Spark wrote:
You can basically generalize that to any major scientific theory that some view as controversial (evolution, GW, plate tectonics and to a lesser extent some of the more popular quantum gravity theories, esp string, LQG) - consensus is not in itself evidence that a theory is sound but it is generally a very predictable byproduct of a theory being sound, since no-one has debunked it in a manner that has been peer-reviewed and demonstrated to be correct and self-consistent.Kmarion wrote:
One youtuber made a good point..If someone had real evidence that actually invalidated the big bang, they'd be either stupid or crazy not to have it published in a well respected peer reviewed publication. refuting such a widely accepted and well supported theory would get them incredible amounts of fame, respect, and grant money for more research. add in the fact that it would revolutionize cosmology and be an incredible help to our understanding of the universe, and i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't publish it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I was trying to make the point that the "consensus is meaningless" crowd are completely off the tree, but OKKmarion wrote:
O dear and what did we ever do before youtube? I know consensus is not enough. Neither is a single unexplained event versus 80+ years of observable and predictable results.Spark wrote:
You can basically generalize that to any major scientific theory that some view as controversial (evolution, GW, plate tectonics and to a lesser extent some of the more popular quantum gravity theories, esp string, LQG) - consensus is not in itself evidence that a theory is sound but it is generally a very predictable byproduct of a theory being sound, since no-one has debunked it in a manner that has been peer-reviewed and demonstrated to be correct and self-consistent.Kmarion wrote:
One youtuber made a good point..
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
A lot of "scientists" whose life's work is built completely on these unproven but integral theories would do a lot to systematically undermine and ridicule any debunking of those theories, no matter how well-founded.Kmarion wrote:
One youtuber made a good point..If someone had real evidence that actually invalidated the big bang, they'd be either stupid or crazy not to have it published in a well respected peer reviewed publication. refuting such a widely accepted and well supported theory would get them incredible amounts of fame, respect, and grant money for more research. add in the fact that it would revolutionize cosmology and be an incredible help to our understanding of the universe, and i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't publish it.
There is still an old boys club in academia.
Spark, post in bold so I knowz it's you.
No it isn't.. We know the Easter Bunny isn't real, our parents placed those eggs (or in my case presents as I don't like chocolate). Just because science is making it harder to believe in a God doesn't make it no chance at all. This universe shouldn't even exist from what we can gather from current science, so why is it so far fetched there could be a God. Closed mindedness doesn't advance anything..Flaming_Maniac wrote:
God is "unknowable" in the same sense that the Easter Bunny is unknowable.ATG wrote:
God and the explanation for the universe are unknowable.
I don't believe in God btw, I just don't ridicule those who do.
You don't know there is no Easter Bunny...you are pretty sure there is no Easter Bunny because people made it up, but there still could be an Easter Bunny.Adams_BJ wrote:
No it isn't.. We know the Easter Bunny isn't real, our parents placed those eggs (or in my case presents as I don't like chocolate). Just because science is making it harder to believe in a God doesn't make it no chance at all. This universe shouldn't even exist from what we can gather from current science, so why is it so far fetched there could be a God. Closed mindedness doesn't advance anything..Flaming_Maniac wrote:
God is "unknowable" in the same sense that the Easter Bunny is unknowable.ATG wrote:
God and the explanation for the universe are unknowable.
I don't believe in God btw, I just don't ridicule those who do.
The analogy is accurate.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7097
+
=
I used to consume as much knowledge about this sort of thing as I could. There are many bricks but little mortar.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2009-09-27 10:09:39)
Didn't read thread but God.
Am I the only one who thinks the theories of the big bang really link to the "matrix" theory?
The big bang would be the initialization of the program, the observers would expand it until the size of the universe reaches a quota, and the program crashes and then restarts, causing the big crunch and the big bang all over again.
The big bang would be the initialization of the program, the observers would expand it until the size of the universe reaches a quota, and the program crashes and then restarts, causing the big crunch and the big bang all over again.
God created every fucking thing.
Including everybody on this forum
/thread
Including everybody on this forum
/thread
Agreed.Bradt3hleader wrote:
God created every fucking thing.
Including everybody on this forum
/thread
I hope some day Jesus will touch the soul of you men who don't believe.
Mentioning touch while talking about Christian churches is a reaaaaally bad idea.TehAndroo wrote:
Agreed.Bradt3hleader wrote:
God created every fucking thing.
Including everybody on this forum
/thread
I hope some day Jesus will touch the soul of you men who don't believe.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
God bless you.Flecco wrote:
Mentioning touch while talking about Christian churches is a reaaaaally bad idea.TehAndroo wrote:
Agreed.Bradt3hleader wrote:
God created every fucking thing.
Including everybody on this forum
/thread
I hope some day Jesus will touch the soul of you men who don't believe.
?ATG wrote:
Spark, post in bold so I knowz it's you.
I iz confused...
Just for you, then
One is science and one is philosophy, so no.Am I the only one who thinks the theories of the big bang really link to the "matrix" theory?
The big bang would be the initialization of the program, the observers would expand it until the size of the universe reaches a quota, and the program crashes and then restarts, causing the big crunch and the big bang all over again.
---
I should never have stopped learning about astrophysics. I needz to catch up...
Last edited by Spark (2009-09-27 22:54:38)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman