Reality is realitys; it is, therefore it is. What we ascribe to do is label and define everything to the best of our knowledge, to the best of our understanding. While some people do it for the pleasure of knowing things, others for their simplistic pleasure of being completely fascinated by something, and others to spit in the face of other people to assert their point. Science is a way of studying reality, but its something you can generally hold onto in times of crisis. Not to say that everything you read/hear is true, but hopefully you can pick the bullshit out of the good shit. Science is a way to interpret what is there to the best of our ability, and science is almost always exclusively dependent on empirical data (FACTS) to prove it. Because, honestly, we all get tired of people talking out of their ass. Thats not what that is there for...
Well one explanation is the culmination of centuries of research and analysis backed up by empirical data. The other is based on a book written thousands of years ago and is filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and metaphors. It's not hard to deduce which explanation is more likely.
Actually, if you knew how the big bang hypothesis originated in the first place, it makes MUCH, MUCH more sense. A 'magic white robbed man in the sky' makes no sense at all.... What sky? . . . . . . . . You're right about one thing. Hypothesis do start off as educated guesses. When an experiment can be preformed over and over again, using the same exact conditions and then yields the same exact results, time and time again, then one may conclude that their hypothesis holds significant merit. The scientific method really does make logical sense.... maybe you should check it out and see if it makes sense to you... Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know of anyone who believes in a "magic white robbed man in the sky" Religion is man's doing, "Religion" is bullshit. The definition of religion is "to be in bondage". You can believe in a higher conciousness/God/supreme being without believing all the bullshit that's in religions. That's like saying the theory of evolution is "A magic fish that morphed into a man" lol
Which is basically what Creationists try to pin it as in order to over-simplify evolution and make it look laughable..
You know what I am done. You guys are to thick-headed to see what I am trying to get across. This is it, Every Theory of Creation is the same thing. Whether it is divine or scientific it is the same thing. The universe is created by means unknown and every new breakthrough is just a rehash to fit with the culture of that time. Is it really that hard to understand? Your heads are just as far up your asses as creationists.
Would make a similar website for the scientific evidence for the lack of God. Perhaps the best use of ones time would be to better others? Or at least to indulge yourself without hurting others.
I've never seen so much ignorance in so few pages. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUA_G5-2KVI&feature=related]YouTube - What Scientists Said About Quran !!!A MUST SEE 4 EVERYONE!!![/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73EfykhtXsE&feature=related]YouTube - see these miracles and you will convert to islam for sure[/ame] - video of some of the statements quoted in the video above [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh40jtBrD5U&feature=related]YouTube - The Black Stone of the Kaaba (Scientific Miracles)[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD2323zkQUM]YouTube - Golden Ratio Point Of The World * Mecca[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxXl5xNdjU]YouTube - Tsunami Miracle[/ame]
Yet we stand upon empirical evidence, something they lacked years ago when making up religion. Go read a book and try to understand evolution and the big bang, then look at the evidence. Then try and come up with a counter theory with supporting evidence, if you can't then accept it for now as the best we know. That is what science is, the best we know.
Now our heads are too far up our asses and these pages contain more ignorance then that guy has ever seen apparently. You guys are taking this too seriously because honestly what the fuck does it matter if someone doesnt share the same opinion with you on grasscity? its a fun debate no need to be saying things like "if you can't see that". Im entitled to my beliefs and your entitled to yours. I base my thoughts on logic. I base my beliefs on the most likely thing that could've happened with the most scientific evidence supporting it. Anyone else is free to believe what theyd like but i realized when i was 14 in church that everyone involved in the church is taking someone elses word for what happened and im not down for blind following. There are some things scientists cant fathom yet like what was before the big bang, or how life originally got to our planet and it seems like the only thing that could've started the chain was some divine figure but i refuse to believe any religions' stories are any more right then something i could come up with in my head.
I understand where your coming from, I just don't like when people go around stating religious scriptures and scientific THEORIES as fact when we just don't know.
[quote name='tongues']You seem to be describing two different interpretations of quantum physics, which do not fit together well. The observe effect adheres to the Copenhagen interpretation, whereas the idea of multpile universes comes from the many-worlds interpretation which does not include an observer effect. I don't think they can both be correct. And why even bring up psychoanalysis? Freud's theories were not empirically derived and have basically no merit. However, I do agree with you that just because we can't see things doesn't mean they aren't there, but we should have good reason to believe they are. don't think they both can be correct? Freud's theories have no merit? ever hear of the Theory of Everything? this thread we are communicating on was started because someone said "this" can't be if "that" is. and that opinion is based off the notion that one of them is wrong (has no merit). see where i'm going? the Theory of Everything, at least in its ideal conception, means it's either ALL TRUE, or ALL FALSE. see if everything has a single source, EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING. there is no such thing as an opposition, another side, or something being wrong vs. right. like i stated in my first response, it's a coin, neither side can see the connection nor the fact that they are the same. only the illusion creates the difference. so yes the observance theory and the multi-worlds theory fit. and the idea of one's consciousness being a trinity, goes well beyond the name Freud, but Freud wasn't wrong either. he, just like everyone else, is just another part of the equation. it takes all the pieces to see the whole picture.
Couldn't put it anymore clearly than that... Yes the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it's in the name. However, there are many theories that have been proven by science and are now accepted as facts (because they are verifiable and the evidence is basically impossible to deny). I think you should do some research on Big Bang Theory, maybe you'd see why it's so believable. But you're right, we don't know, so we can only speculate as far as which theory seems most likely...
I jus wanted to put in my two cents..off topic but idc.. I think people like to target Christians/Christianity in general nowadays.As soon as a Christian does something wrong everyone acts all fuckin surprisd and shocked..As if they didn't know that Christians are just humans too..like evry1 else. Always quick to judge the Christians and talk them down. Sorry,off topic.