Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**EndoFury** · 11-03-2011, 02:39 AM

(11-03-2011 02:37 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: Show me the facts.

Are you that obtuse? Just to scratch the surface, when you gaze at the stars you're looking at light that took millions of years to reach your fucking eye balls, yet a theory based on our understanding of what we're observing out there is on equal footing with "God did it in 7 days."?

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 02:48 AM

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronom...ml#bigbang
I found this, pretty good website, a lot of info. You will see under Common misconceptions about the big bang theory, there is a quote from a famous cosmologist P.J.E Peebles, that sates: "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began".

We have not yet found a scientific theory explaining creation. You seem to think that I believe religion, which I do not. I am merely pointing out the obvious, no theory of creation have any scientific evidence, Fact.

**EndoFury** · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2011 02:53 AM by EndoFury.)

(11-03-2011 02:48 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronom...ml#bigbang
I found this, pretty good website, a lot of info. You will see under Common misconceptions about the big bang theory, there is a quote from a famous cosmologist P.J.E Peebles, that sates: "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began".

We have not yet found a scientific theory explaining creation. You seem to think that I believe religion, which I do not. I am merely pointing out the obvious, no theory of creation have any scientific evidence, Fact.

Wrong. I already stated that even if The Big Bang is wrong, it's not on equal footing with mythology. There is empirical evidence involved in the theory when none is involved in mythology. Imagine if it is proved wrong, another reasonable theory based on empirical evidence will arise. Science corrects itself when religion does not. God doesn't explain creation either, because what created God? What created that? What created that? I'm not going to type infinitely here, you should get the point. Just because we can't explain our creation doesn't mean all ideas are on equal ground and anything goes.

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 02:57 AM

You did not read it did you? There is no scientific theory of creation, because scientist know that there is no way to prove it. Just like there is no way to prove God is real or not. I am stating facts, you are interpreting them in your own way to have someone to be angry at. I never said religion makes any king of empirical sense, it is merely unprovable, therefore you can't rule it out. That is all I said. And I will stop talking here unless you present me with new questions that I have not yet answered.

**EndoFury** · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2011 03:06 AM by EndoFury.)

(11-03-2011 02:57 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: You did not read it did you? There is no scientific theory of creation, because scientist know that there is no way to prove it. Just like there is no way to prove God is real or not. I am stating facts, you are interpreting them in your own way to have someone to be angry at. I never said religion makes any king of empirical sense, it is merely unprovable, therefore you can't rule it out. That is all I said. And I will stop talking here unless you present me with new questions that I have not yet answered.

So, anything that can't be unproven can't be ruled out? I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. What about pink unicorns? You can't prove there aren't pink unicorns, so hey, don't rule it out. Again, why even rule it in (possibility of God)? What purpose does it serve that isn't self serving and unfounded in reality?

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 03:05 AM

And I agree, there is also the possibility of a multiverse, which a pink unicorn may potentially live. I actually think it is a possibility, not being sarcastic.

**EndoFury** · 11-03-2011, 03:09 AM

(11-03-2011 03:05 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: And I agree, there is also the possibility of a multiverse, which a pink unicorn may potentially live. I actually think it is a possibility, not being sarcastic.

How cute. I'm glad we're not free to believe whatever we want about observable reality or else we'd be fucked!

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 03:12 AM

Why would you bring up the Big Bang theory if you do not agree with Quantuam Mechanics, which is the basis of something out of nothing, which is also the basis of a multiverse.

**EndoFury** · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2011 03:14 AM by EndoFury.)

(11-03-2011 03:12 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: Why would you bring up the Big Bang theory if you do not agree with Quantuam Mechanics, which is the basis of something out of nothing, which is also the basis of a multiverse.

You brought up The Big Bang theory when you put it on equal footing with mythology and tried to draw a parallel between Genesis 1:1 and The Big Bang Theory (or was that someone else)?

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 03:15 AM

Oopsey, I digress. But never the less you expressed that it was a valid theory, no? Therefore my statement still stands.

**EndoFury** · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2011 03:22 AM by EndoFury.)

(11-01-2011 06:53 PM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: It is more arrogant to think that you that as a fact. Nobody can prove the big bang, or God. And nobody can prove that God did not create the big bang. We can only ask deep and philosophical questions to explore the ideal of God and its basis in our lives and realities. That is all.

Here it is. Ok, someone else tried to parallel Gen 1:1 and The Big Bang, but you still brought it up.

(11-03-2011 03:15 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: Oopsey, I digress. But never the less you expressed that it was a valid theory, no? Therefore my statement still stands.

No, I'm expressing that it's not on equal footing with mythology and is supported by empirical evidence and is a conclusion based on reason, no matter if it's correct or not.

Ya know, it's also one thing to consider the possibility of a multivariate, but entirely another to speculate what could exist there and then include something imaginary like pink unicorns. In the realm of what we don't understand or know, it really isn't a game of anything goes if you rely on reason. What reason do you even have to believe that pink unicorns could exist in a multiverse other than you can't prove they don't?

**YaelTheGreat** · 11-03-2011, 03:19 AM

So you agree that a possibility of a muliverse does exist?