I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Science is just our best guess based on the information we have available at the time.

Agreeing or disagreeing on the matter is beside the point because there is simply no way of knowing.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma really.

Ah but do Raccoons ponder the nature of the universe in the same manner that we do?

Who knows? Well besides the Raccoons that is.

Probably not considering they apparently don't have the mathematical analytical skills or technological base that us allegedly clever monkey have at there disposal.

Maybe it's the degree of curiosity that humanity seems to have that sets us apart from the other animals?

Or maybe we are not as apart as we seem to think we are?

I already identified the thing that separates us from animals. Writing.

I don't particularly think humanity is special really but i do think the fact the we assume we are allows us to entertain notions that would otherwise be beyond our ability to comprehend.

Science is a process of continually answering questions, and no question is answered in science without spawning many others. So just by continuing science it is only natural these questions be asked eventually.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedyman, as we have already discovered in previous interactions, you have absolutely no capacity to educate me or anyone else on the matters pertaining to the sciences, or the implications of studies undertaken by its various branches.

Yes I noted education was beyond you

Maybe you should think twice about brow beating others because they have a different opinion than you

Here is a thought, rather than lecturing me with a little commentary, step up with the evidence I requested, save some face truebrit

You know, branches and studies undertaken, branches and shallow talk with no substance

Best you turn tail TB, I just have to keep asking for substance, you can't provide it, run to the hills

a reply to: MuonToGluon

Heh. I know what he is and believes. Him and I have a history on ATS, but I'll still try to explain my point to him calmly. Always remember that there are three parties involved in a debate. The two arguers and the silent audience judging the caliber of the arguments presented.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Plenty of civilizations in human history that have existed and possed questions yet did not develop writing.

Science is the only viable tool we have at our disposal to address our reality, the only tool that relies on factual information rather than religious mumbojumbo that is.

Plus if Science did not pose more questions than it answered i imagine the universe would be rather a dull place to exist.

a reply to: andy06shake

When I was an atheist, the Big Bang sounded stupid to me
Still does

Plenty of other things in science I have seen repeated, observed and tested
Not the bb, that's a guess
So is the speed of light, constant of time and gravity, just a guess at best
Constants never remain constant, entropy and all that

We differ, I understand the op and their reasoning

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already identified the thing that separates us from animals. Writing.

I always thought it was awareness of our mortality?

Humans being the only animals aware and certain they are going to die some day?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Plenty of civilizations in human history that have existed and possed questions yet did not develop writing.

All of which we know next to nothing about; which includes the breadth of their sciences.

Science is the only viable tool we have at our disposal to address our reality, the only tool that relies on factual information rather than religious mumbojumbo that is.

Yes. It is the best tool we have at our disposal to sate our curiosity.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already identified the thing that separates us from animals. Writing.

I always thought it was awareness of our mortality?

Humans being the only animals aware and certain they are going to die some day?

I'm more sure that is a product of our fears more than anything else.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"All of which we know next to nothing about; which includes the breadth of their sciences."

Suppose that's down to the way they communicated information orally as apposed to writing. Historically speaking from our point view short of the invention of time travel i guess we will never definitively know what they knew about reality.

Science does more than just sate our curiosity, it enables progress and dispels religious dogma to what end through remains to be seen.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Simply put Raggedyman, you are not in a position to educate me on matters scientific, because I exceed your understanding in all fields, in all ways, including in terms of my ability to comprehend those fields and the implications of research held therein.

There are countless resources surrounding the big bang, which you could, if you had either the interest or the intellectual capacity, research for yourself. You could look into the work of Penrose, Hawking and Ellis in the late sixties and early seventies, and I do not mean just the written explanations of these things, but the mathematical calculations involved and where the values for those were derived from. You could look into the implications of the creation of a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is, itself, part of the evidence for the big bang, the methodology behind the creation of that map, how it was achieved, how the data was recovered.

Of course, you do not need my help with that, and nor does anyone else around here, because these things have been gone over in some significant detail since I joined in 07. I am not about to waste the space and the time necessary to repeat both myself, and a whole host of other people, just on this website mind, leave alone the rest of the damned internet. If you want spoon feeding, go ahead and join a night class. You may learn something worth knowing, perhaps for the first time in your life.

The big bang theory is just that, a theory. How do they come to the conclusion that before the bang all matter fitted on a pinhead? Why couldn't it have been a body of material say billions of miles across that held all the matter in the universe now that is scattered and that exploded.
We can only speculate as laymen and by the same token scientists can only speculate, educated speculation but speculation non the less.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're talking to a "person" (Mindless Drone) who is demanding evidence when he claims the world is 6000years old and there is no such thing as fossils and that natural diamonds do not require extreme heat and pressure to create them and can be done in under 10000 years and carbon dating is completely wrong.

The only good this "person" is for is smashing your head against a brick wall while you read the hypocritical arrogant smugness that comes off this "person" who demands proof from others but will never provide any himself and will go childlike insulting screaming when you prove him wrong.

I am the mindless drone but nature takes millions of years to make diamonds but man only months
Do you seriously not see the disconnect? If man can do it in months why can't nature. Mindless, really, me? Yet nature takes millions of years to make a diamond but only millennia to evolve an animal, seriously, mindless drone

I certainly don't claim no fossils, I have seen plenty, good strawman though

Demanding evidence, oops sorry, should have realized I shouldn't do that

Evidence, Really, how stupid of me to demand evidence, who needs evidence



Mindless drone, I wonder

Have a good night...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"All of which we know next to nothing about; which includes the breadth of their sciences."

Suppose that's down to the way they communicated information orally as apposed to writing. Historically speaking from our point view short of the invention of time travel i guess we will never definitively know what they knew about reality.

Well the civilizations we DO know about appeared to be at the very least hyper religious (as were all ancient civilizations). So we know that was wrong. Also without writing they couldn't chart things like the Mayans charting the planets, so their sense of time and accuracy was likely off as well. They also appeared to be rather good at dragging around stone and building stuff with said stone. Without construction plans I might add (no writing).

But yeah, like you said this is mostly guesswork with very limited evidence to back up the inferences.

Science does more than just sate our curiosity, it enables progress and dispels religious dogma to what end through remains to be seen.

Be careful not to overvalue science either. Humans have experienced progress before the scientific method was created. And there may even be a much BETTER tool humans will create in the future that can collect and aggregate data much more efficiently than the brute force method. I'm sure computer programming theory will go a long way to developing this new methodology if it is possible too.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well apparently entropy must in-cress if indeed our universe is a closed system.

Special relativity sets the speed of light, or so my physics teacher lead me to believe.

Does it change as a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space through? Apparently that's debatable or so some scientists seem to suggest.

If it does vary or is non-constant that could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be way off.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Religion and science attempt to address rather similar notions if you think about it, but in very different manner.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes. At their very core structure they are both methodologies for attempting to understand the universe and sate our curiosity about how it works.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Simply put, neither are you TB
If you were, you wouldn't have posted all that jargon, you would have posted evidence

You have nothing but bluff, post it, I call your bluff, post it or go hide
Go hide

I think you are a little frightened, bit yellow

Prove me wrong, post your scientific evidence TB

I would say coward but that's not accurate, you are not scared, you just can't post what you havnt got, evidence, so you just talk tough.
Water on a ducks back to me

Prove me wrong, please, I am asking, seriously.
Prove me wrong, post the scientific evidence for the bb

This is boring

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am the mindless drone but nature takes millions of years to make diamonds but man only months
Do you seriously not see the disconnect?

Have you actually looked into the process for how artificial diamonds are created and how it differs from how it is done naturally?

If man can do it in months why can't nature. Mindless, really, me? Yet nature takes millions of years to make a diamond but only millennia to evolve an animal, seriously, mindless drone

It doesn't take a millennia to evolve an animal. It takes much longer than that.

Demanding evidence, oops sorry, should have realized I shouldn't do that

Evidence, Really, how stupid of me to demand evidence, who needs evidence

There is a difference between demanding evidence that is lacking and questioning things that have answers you can easily look up yourself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet they are still diametrically opposed on so many different levels.

Difference is science promotes progress where as religion not so much.

Both still require a measure of faith through.

Science somewhat refines its ideologies over time, if our religions did the same one has to wonder as to the conclusion they would come to?