d2jsp
d2jsp Forums > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > The Big Bang Theory > "impartial Discussion"
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Superman
#1 Oct 26 2017 12:12pm
Group: Member
Posts: 41,133
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 0.15
Today, top scientists at CERN debunked the big bang theory. They concluded that anti-matter and matter symmetry is impossible. The mere existance of the universe defies the laws of nature. In conclusion, it could not have happened naturally. According to the laws of nature, antimatter must equal matter and they found that there's far less antimatter so therefore the big bang could not be.

I think the biggest issue is that top scientists should try their very best to validate the various forms of creationism, but they won't. It's called confirmation bias. Scientists try their very best to find an alternative to the various forms of creationism instead. When what they should be doing is impartially testing every theory.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this subject, please keep it impartial in nature or I'll report posts for spam.
DCSS
#2 Oct 26 2017 12:17pm
Group: Member
Posts: 9,625
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 40%
BREAKING NEWS: We still don't have the answer to one of the hardest questions in astrophysics: how asymmetry between matter and antimatter occurred.
Ty for update

Must have been God, historically everything we didn't used to understand about the way the universe works but we figured out later ended up being God, right? :rolleyes:

Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:12pm)
I think the biggest issue is that top scientists should try their very best to validate the various forms of creationism, but they won't. It's called confirmation bias. Scientists try their very best to find an alternative to the various forms of creationism instead. When what they should be doing is impartially testing every theory.


one of the most ridiculous statements i ever heard, widespread delusional adherence does not elevate statements made in fictional stories to the status of a hypothesis worth exploring. A hypothesis by definition requires some sort of empirical evidence to go off of. Scientists may as well start the search for the giant spaghetti monster that farted out the galaxies, that'd be about as productive.

This post was edited by DCSS on Oct 26 2017 12:33pm
Superman
#3 Oct 26 2017 12:34pm
Group: Member
Posts: 41,133
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 0.15
Quote (DCSS @ 26 Oct 2017 12:17)
CERN still doesn't have the answer to one of the hardest questions in astrophysics? Wtf... They've had like 60 years to figure it out...


Time and time again, scientists have failed to validate every scientific theory they have. For hundreds of years, they are still not scientific facts. It's time for scientists to think outside the box a bit more.


All you did was prove that you suffer from a condition known as confirmation bias. You didn't even prove or test that they are fiction.

This post was edited by Superman on Oct 26 2017 12:37pm
murder567
#4 Oct 26 2017 12:38pm
Group: Member
Posts: 9,357
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,835.00
#1 What are the initial assumptions built into the Big Bang theory?

#2 In what way was the Big Bang theory 'debunked'?

In other words, is this new data challenging the "initial conditions" of our universe or the "laws of physics" that govern interactions in our universe?
DCSS
#5 Oct 26 2017 12:38pm
Group: Member
Posts: 9,625
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 40%
Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:34pm)
Time and time again, scientists have failed to validate every scientific theory they have. For hundreds of years, they are still not scientific facts. It's time for scientists to think outside the box a bit more.


i cant think of anything more inside the box and downright futile than trying to put creationism through the rigors of the scientific method. Where do we even begin? Scientists don't know where to begin, creationists don't even know, it's a waste of time. Better humanity spends the next 1 million years not knowing than believing they know.

Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:34pm)
All you did was prove that you suffer from a condition known as confirmation bias. You didn't even prove or test that they are fiction.


the burden of proof is on the claimant, not me. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

This post was edited by DCSS on Oct 26 2017 12:41pm
Superman
#6 Oct 26 2017 12:43pm
Group: Member
Posts: 41,133
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 0.15
Quote (DCSS @ 26 Oct 2017 12:38)
i cant think of anything more inside the box and downright futile than trying to put creationism through the rigors of the scientific method. Where do we even begin? Scientists don't know, creationists don't know, it's a waste of time. Better humanity spends the next 1 million years not knowing than believing they know.


Put The Bible through it all and see what happens? It may seem absurd, but try to prove it like any other theory until you can't.
Superman
#7 Oct 26 2017 12:44pm
Group: Member
Posts: 41,133
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 0.15
Quote (murder567 @ 26 Oct 2017 12:38)
#1 What are the initial assumptions built into the Big Bang theory?

#2 In what way was the Big Bang theory 'debunked'?

In other words, is this new data challenging the "initial conditions" of our universe or the "laws of physics" that govern interactions in our universe?


Yes.
DCSS
#8 Oct 26 2017 12:47pm
Group: Member
Posts: 9,625
Joined: Jan 7 2015
Gold: Locked
Warn: 40%
Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:43pm)
Put The Bible through it all and see what happens? It may seem absurd, but try to prove it like any other theory until you can't.


You're acting like people haven't. There's a reason nothing groundbreaking has ever come from trying to figure out if the tree of knowledge was real or the genesis flood happened or if snakes could ever talk.
Superman
#9 Oct 26 2017 12:52pm
Group: Member
Posts: 41,133
Joined: Jul 5 2008
Gold: 0.15
Quote (DCSS @ 26 Oct 2017 12:47)
You're acting like people haven't. There's a reason nothing groundbreaking has ever come from trying to figure out if the tree of knowledge was real or the genesis flood happened or if snakes could ever talk.


I think a snake is symbolical, I don't think it was an actual snake. You have to remember, the bible has to be correctly interpreted, it's like poetry so you can't take everything in the Bible at face value or literally. You have to fully understand the Bible, it's very complex and you can't read it like a textbook. Or apply it to the rigors of science in that manner.

This post was edited by Superman on Oct 26 2017 12:53pm
murder567
#10 Oct 26 2017 12:53pm
Group: Member
Posts: 9,357
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,835.00
Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:44pm)
Yes.


Oh, see I thought you wanted to have a discussion here.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll