It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
Theory doesnt need direct observation of the event for it to be scientific. If it needed, then it means all History is pseudoscience, because it cannot be directly observed. Theory needs only EVIDENCE, if direct observation cannot be done.
We have observations and evidence (all galaxies are moving away from each other, universe was different in the past..) that is explained by BBT.
That's explained by many other things besides BBT...so how exactly is the big bang theory MORE accurate than say...God stretching the heavens out?
Besides that, I still don't see how the "percentage" of the viewed sky can support the claim when there's another "percentage" that doesn't support it. Just as I've said, the Francis Filament doesn't agree with the BBT. So, what do we do in this case? Sweep it under the rug? Make up some other outlandish claim such as redshift "diminishing returns" What to do...what to do....
I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that. I'm simply saying that...the BBT is outlandish and no more based in fact than me saying there are invisible pixies that do the job of "gravity" and it's a supernatural event rather than a physical one.....
The events of me throwing something in the air and having the "invisible pixies" bring it back down...is an observation that reinforces my statement....that's exactly what the "expanding universe" is for the big bang theory....
Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex
That's not checkmate. That's called stalemate and it's considered a draw.
Despite the hypocrisy of your belief, your God is no more valid in comparison to the BBT than the universe being born from the bowel movement of a pink unicorn. Yet, you believe your personal deity to be more valid than any other idea.
Your a flipping hypocrite, not an open minded explorer of reality.
Thank you for judging me, just goes to show how little you have understood about my commentary here. I have never claimed that my beliefs in a deity reflect science. However, your beliefs about the BBT, are SUPPOSED to reflect science, yet, they don't. It is founded on the same, if not more, of a leap of faith that any other origins related claim is based on.
BTW: I never claimed my belief in God was more founded in truth than yours. Not once did I say you are not allowed to believe in whatever you want. Not once did I claim that you're stumbling blindly down the wrong path. Not once did I become condescending towards your beliefs. Not once did I judge you for holding on to those beliefs. I believe everybody has the right to their opinion. I was simply voicing my own opinion on the theory that you hold as yours...just as you have voiced your opinion on MY opinion about a divine Creator. Hypocrisy abounds because you smite me for not being open minded, yet you are clearly not open minded to anything that has to do with a deity. You have pushed it all aside simply because it is "unscientific". I guess the supernatural really doesn't account for anything. I suppose you are one that believes dreams are simply electrical signals and have no significance. You too, probably believe the astral realm is not real....Or when it comes to aliens, you will say that probability makes it so abundantly clear...well...probability doesn't deny a Creator...take it as you wish...but the bathwater does no good without the baby...