you call it hostile i call it stating a fact. you keep showing you have no real idea what the science you are talking about being wrong is really about or how it works. you honestly think our planet is special? take a look at some of our current findings and you'll see there are a ton of planets so far that we've found that show promise of being earth-like, and we have barely scratched the surface of whats in our universe. you really need to personally educate yourself more on the science you are talking about and how things are formed because there are a lot of scientist that have spent their life explaining this stuff and you need to go look into it instead of thinking you are smarter than they are.

This post was edited by Psycho- on May 11 2010 03:53pm

i didnt say i was smarter than they are, i;m simply tying to implore a close minded populace to not be so stubborn but thousands of years of human stupidity has proven that such a task is nearly impossible.

you havent said a single thing with any kind of source or evidence or citation yet you come an try to attack me and say i have no idea what im talking about? how about instead of attacking me you take your own advice and look into your facts some more. and then realize your facts slowly turn out ot be theories and that those theories are no more correct in the end then the opinion of any other person or religious fanatic

theories aren't based on a single though process. lets say someone says i can throw a ball over a mountain as a theory. the next guy would weigh the ball and measure the muscle tissue of said person and calculate its maximum output. if said output was proven that it could not possibly hurl said weight over said distance than it is proven to be a false theory. now the big bang theory is the opposite of that. scientist have take this theory and tested its angles and concluded its basis is scientifically accurate and therefore a valid theory and therefore has scientific standing. all of this isn't some philosophical discussion on whether it is or isn't its scientific method and it has been used to prove a lot of things.

first off, the big bang will never become anything more than a theory. most scientific explanations dont. a theory is something that specifically explains an event, is very concise and is, overall, some sort of explanation. a scientific law on the other hand, is typically much more broad and is some statement (often built upon mathematical proof or empirical observation) that describes the pattern for some observation. in short, a scientific law explains how things work. a scientific theory explains why a particular phenomenon occurred as it did.

next, the theory itself doesnt include what happened the moment "at" the big bang, it merely describes the events that followed immediately after the singularity "banged". this fact has no impact on the validity of the theory whatsoever
and to be honest, yes, the big bang is the best explanation we have as of late, but there are still a considerable amount of kinks that need to be dealt with.

if you have a limited understanding of what a theory is your opinion, therefore, is really useless to argue with.
get good son.

kamikizzle said it best

this thread is becoming very off topic though. this thread is about discussing possibilities to their very core and if you cant look past what you think is correct then theres no point in being here. i personally believe in some sort of intelligent design. i understand the big bang theory and i understand why it may be possible but i simply don't believe something so spectacular could happen without something else at work to cause it, thats all.

lol...ya lets criticize my poor wording after a few paragraphs. i was also posting in another thread asking why its taught as a fact in school therefore i brought that frame of mind to this thread.

And no one here is qualified to make a better theory about the way the universe started i can guarantee you that.

the point im making is just because someone isnt as knowledgeable on a subject as you, doesnt mean you should talk down to them.
so what if this guy isnt as well versed in a subject that is still unclear to the most brilliant minds of our generation. einstein thought the universe was static, and wasnt even close to imagining that the universe would be as the big bang describes. if HE couldnt rap his head around this fact, then why are you brushing tedmore's opinions and inquiries off like hes an idiot who doesnt deserve to be educated on the subject. i was simply giving you the same respect youve been giving tedmore this entire thread.

and btw, i wasnt criticizing your "wording"
you blatantly implied the big bang would one day become more than a theory if we could explain the origins. this is incorrect (as i pointed out) because it will always remain a theory, as its function is identical to that of a theory, and it was also incorrect because the origin of the singularity is never once touched upon in the theory itself. the big bang describes what occurs AFTER our universe came to be-- not before, or the moment during its conception.

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on May 12 2010 01:40pm

my problem was he asked about the big bang and i tried to answer and from there he went with "his idea of it" which was just pure skepticism and ignorance. no matter what he says hes not looking to learn hes just looking to argue.

well then perhaps before you "argue" with him, you learn what a theory is

like i said before theres another thread about this that involved a guy asking why a theory if taught as a fact and blah blah blah. got mixed up because i was trying to have two discussions about same topic with different people.