'Big Bang' actually 'Big Chill,' new theory says

trickblue;4681618 said:
But it's why they call it a "Theory"... so they can come back later and amend any new findings...

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

When they know for sure it will be labeled as "Law of Evolution" or "Theorem of Evolution"...

I'm not saying they are wrong, just providing the most common example... Scientists build in the "add more later" but many in the outside world take it for 100% accurate as new things are found...
Theories don't become laws in science.
Read this http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law
 
jwitten82;4681626 said:

Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...
 
trickblue;4681663 said:
Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...
Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.
 
jwitten82;4681671 said:
Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

Oh OK... Pluto says "Hey"...
 
jwitten82;4681677 said:
What does Pluto have to do with faith?

umm... don't turn this around... you said they have evidence to back up their theories...

When I was in school we were taught that Pluto was in our solar system... now it isn't. I bet the day before that revelation, you would have argued until blue in the face it was, then argued the opposite the next... Apparently their evidence was misguided...

This whole thread is about a new theory that conflicts with an old theory, yet you site them both as truth...

You have faith in their findings... like it or not...
 
jwitten82;4681671 said:
Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?
 
trickblue;4681680 said:
umm... don't turn this around... you said they have evidence to back up their theories...

When I was in school we were taught that Pluto was in our solar system... now it isn't. I bet the day before that revelation, you would have argued until blue in the face it was, then argued the opposite the next... Apparently their evidence was misguided...

This whole thread is about a new theory that conflicts with an old theory, yet you site them both as truth...

You have faith in their findings... like it or not...
Pluto is still in our solar system, it's a dwarf planet.
 
trickblue;4681663 said:
Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...
I think the only criticism is regarding faith in beliefs that aren't substantiated by observable or calculable facts.
 
Funny that any religious discussions are against the rules, but a Mod posts a story related to the Big Bang, which is a topic that almost always brings apon religious discussion and arguments.

I guess it can work as long as they always have a set of eyes hawking this thread, but it's still pretty risky.
 
zrinkill;4681684 said:
Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?
The evidence is there for us to see.For example, if you want evidence for evolution just go to a museum and they have transistional fossils for you to see.
 
baj1dallas;4681104 said:
fascinating theory. Difficult to wrap your brain around the idea of course. Vaguely similar to the multiverse theory, except with all the multiverses existing simultaneously within one...well whatever. I wonder if the building blocks they are talking about are strings, or something else.

That's an excellent question. When you know let me in and we'll share the Nobel prize. :D
 
jwitten82;4681686 said:
Pluto is still in our solar system, it's a dwarf planet.

Reclassified in 2006 as is only one of several large bodies in the Kuiper (sp) Belt. So they were wrong...

You are avoiding the pig picture by arguing semantics. So you aren't religious... who cares... but to pretend you have all of the answers via science is a foolish path to meander... NO ONE has all of the answers...

Just admit you are a man of faith, my friend, and we can move forward... ;)
 
trickblue;4681618 said:
Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

Pluto is still in the Solar System.

Regardless, it's a bad example because it's simply a matter of taxonomy; it's not as if astronomers said, "Hey, that thing we call Pluto? Yeah...so...we were wrong about it existing".
 
zrinkill;4681684 said:
Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?

Scientist pretty much patrol themselves. If someone says something that can't be verified, other scientists will not just call him out, but ridicule them to the point that some are forced to step down.

Ask Antonio Ereditato about it.

If you are caught lying in the world of Science, your career would be over. Truth is what they are searching for. That is why they are scientist. :)
 
trickblue;4681698 said:
Reclassified in 2006 as is only one of several large bodies in the Kuiper (sp) Belt. So they were wrong...

You are avoiding the pig picture by arguing semantics. So you aren't religious... who cares... but to pretend you have all of the answers via science is a foolish path to meander... NO ONE has all of the answers...

Just admit you are a man of faith, my friend, and we can move forward... ;)
I never said I had all the answers. I admit that there are things that we do not know.
 
theogt;4681690 said:
I think the only criticism is regarding faith in beliefs that aren't substantiated by observable or calculable facts.

I can understand that, but how many years have we been looking for the so-called "Missing Link"?

I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, but up until this point the scientific world asks us to have faith that it exists...

I'm not taking one side or the other, I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those that claim absolute truth, absolutely...
 
trickblue;4681707 said:
I can understand that, but how many years have we been looking for the so-called "Missing Link"?

I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, but up until this point the scientific world asks us to have faith that it exists...

I'm not taking one side or the other, I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those that claim absolute truth, absolutely...
They have found transistional fossils.
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
 
Sam I Am;4681700 said:
Scientist pretty much patrol themselves. If someone says something that can't be verified, other scientists will not just call him out, but ridicule them to the point that some are forced to step down.

Ask Antonio Ereditato about it.

If you are caught lying in the world of Science, your career would be over.

So you have faith that scientist police themselves.

I am glad you believe that.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
464,576
Messages
13,819,696
Members
23,780
Latest member
HoppleSopple
Back
Top