I know the other guy above was claiming that evolution is a fact
Atheists are amusing
- Thread starter bluebird
- Start date
- Status
it is lol. isn't that basic high school education?
It's not. I already discussed that above in this thread. I'm not disagreeing with the theory I'm just pointing out the flaws in it
Rorschach
...
Your statement here is the problem. Scientists theorised the Big Bang from the red shift phenomenon: change in wavelength possibly indicating the stars were expanding. They then speculated that since there's a steady expansion, there must have been a central point where everything expanded from i.e. Big Bang.
Now tell me brother, using logic/math prove to me that an expanding universe = a singular event called the Big Bang. How do we know that the red-shift isn't some other phenomenon we don;t know about? How do we know that the universe expands and contracts in cycles? What if the Universe is layered and only our layer appears to be expanding?
If you look into Dark Matter, they literally just made that shit up to plug a hole in their other theories. These guys work backwards.
Observation/event: "My car was here in the morning, but is now gone in the afternoon."
Theory: "It was lifted by an army of ants into the woods."
Astrophysicist - Must find way of justifying ants taking the car by any means necessary.
Random: "What if some kids stole it?"
Astrophysicist: "No! The theory says an army of ants. If there is no army of ants, my dissertation (read funding) on another phenomenon reliant on them is a waste. There must be strong ants here dammit!" Continuous speculating on super strong ants. Possibly arrived from the planet Mars?
This is the nature of Astrophysics; speculation built on speculation sprinkled with fantasy. Some of you show more conviction for these theories than the physicists themselves, since they constantly bicker with each over their wild models e.g. multi-universe, multi-dimensions, etc.
@hodon
They laugh at you for mistrusting one of the most dishonest groups/systems of authorities in the history of the world. Ayaga ey uu taala though sis - do your thing.
MadNomad
As i live and breathe
There are other possibilities. But based on the rules of the universe we are familiar with the big bang theory is the best we got. Could it be wrong? Sure. Is it likely to be wrong? I don't personally think so. Either way, science isn't a religion. It can change when presented with new evidence.
@hodon you and me can't go out and do every scientific experiment there is and empirically confirm it we don't have the knowledge in every aspect of science.
However, I can rely on Science because other people are able to confirm this individual/group of researchers claims using the same tools and parameters.
Islam does not afford anything even close to this. It demands you have faith (belief without evidence) or else you burn for eternity (MLK would be in Hellfire if he died in his faith lol) so it smacks of hypocrisy when you people apply scrutiny to beliefs you never held and afford full apology to those you've conveniently held since birth...
However, I can rely on Science because other people are able to confirm this individual/group of researchers claims using the same tools and parameters.
Islam does not afford anything even close to this. It demands you have faith (belief without evidence) or else you burn for eternity (MLK would be in Hellfire if he died in his faith lol) so it smacks of hypocrisy when you people apply scrutiny to beliefs you never held and afford full apology to those you've conveniently held since birth...
Rorschach
...
I think what @hodon is arguing is that the Big Bang is held as true as the existence of God among atheists. She is pointing out this hypocrisy. Your response above is very reasonable way to state your understanding/belief regarding these things. What I find frustrating is speaking to youth who know nothing about these theories laughing and mocking you for discussion their obvious flaws.
These cats embarrass themselves.
MadNomad
As i live and breathe
What she seemed to be saying was that science and religion requires the same amount of blind faith. Which i don't agree with.
But yeah, science isn't absolute. It's reliable.
Rorschach
...
For future reference, when I write Science on here, I'm excluding most of natural science. No one here is arguing against things like Bernoulli's theorem or electromagnetism.
Einstein's theory of relativity though...
MadNomad
As i live and breathe
For future reference, when I write Science on here, I'm excluding most of natural science. No one here is arguing against things like Bernoulli's theorem or electromagnetism.
Einstein's theory of relativity though...
Haha, i hear you. And that's your prerogative.
Apollo
VIP
Science is also highly politicized and has its 'fatwas' as well. Like the 'fatwa' that all human groups are equal and if you start researching this subject in a Western country your scientific career is over as you are labelled a heretic.
McLovin
VIP
Racialism is a pseudoscience my friend. Get with the times
Apollo
VIP
Racialism is a pseudoscience my friend. Get with the times
Some groups are on average 185cm in male height, others average 155cm in male height. Of course, this is accepted, but not that similar disparities but in brain capacity exist between groups. Because fatwa.
McLovin
VIP
If such a study was to be made it would obviously favor jews and asians.
Maybe they are boycotting it becuase it has been responsible for many inhumane policies and genocide in the past. Either way whatever their reasoning is, I still dont think Race is an accurate or productive way to describe human biological differences
The majority of hard science can be confirmed by one of the five senses so there isn't a need to go out and do experiments. Can you say the same for all theories? Yet it will still be held as a fact by the atheist community, not because they've seen it, not because they have "empirical proof" but simple as they've been taught it as such. Many of you in this thread can't even explain what it is you believe, like one who immediately passed the baton onto government saying, the proof of the burden was on him, even though he was the claimant from the two.
@Rorschach close, but I'm not arguing they hold it as true as God, I'm arguing they hold the words of their authority, like a holy book refusing to question them or their motives. For example, the Big Bang theory, @MadNomad said it was the best thing they have, but the mainstream scientific community had abandoned it in favor of a new theory several years ago. But yet he would have taken out the telescope like he said and whatever he would have seen that confirms the Big Bang would have been confirmation bias, because if we hold their words as "FACTS" then the Big Bang theory he said he would find evidence for doesn't even exist. It's like you said they do backwards calculation.
He makes a good point. You don't accept it now because the mainstream hasn't done so. Not because of evidence but for other reasons, had they accepted it you would too. The "evidence" for it is still out there. The difference is who's promoting it?
Exhibit A Stephen Hawkins http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/02/stephen-hawking-time-travel_n_1643488.html. Look at this guy "
I have experimental evidence that time travel is not possible,” he said.
“I gave a party for time-travellers, but I didn’t send out the invitations until after the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came.” Has he ever thought that even if time travel were possible, no one would be interested in coming to his party and maybe that's why no one showed up
I guess this is the empirical evidence of the people of logic
I have experimental evidence that time travel is not possible,” he said.
“I gave a party for time-travellers, but I didn’t send out the invitations until after the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came.” Has he ever thought that even if time travel were possible, no one would be interested in coming to his party and maybe that's why no one showed up
I guess this is the empirical evidence of the people of logic
simulacrum
Neo-Darwinist
Most layman read popularized books written by physicists that explain these theories metaphorically and poetically. and leave out the mathematical equations that these theories are based on because they are quite convoluted unless one has a background in math. so the best that non-scientists understand is mostly superficially because they are expressed in ordinary language and not in math.
Though sometimes metaphorical language can drastically change the game in the science community( Einsteins thought experiment). However most theories are rooted in observations, experiments, mathematical abstractions that most people don't have the resources to understand. And because of this, the science community enjoys an overwhelming prestige which can give some scientists a sense of unjustified superiority.
The question is > Is it ''rational'' to accept them even though you don't completely understand it? I would say yes.
''Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific. It is, therefore, rational to accept it hypothetically'' - Bertrand Russell.
Though sometimes metaphorical language can drastically change the game in the science community( Einsteins thought experiment). However most theories are rooted in observations, experiments, mathematical abstractions that most people don't have the resources to understand. And because of this, the science community enjoys an overwhelming prestige which can give some scientists a sense of unjustified superiority.
The question is > Is it ''rational'' to accept them even though you don't completely understand it? I would say yes.
''Science is at no moment quite right, but it is seldom quite wrong, and has, as a rule, a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific. It is, therefore, rational to accept it hypothetically'' - Bertrand Russell.
- Status
