^No you didn't.  

Posted by Blueh

Now you're just contradicting yourself. I'm going to assume you never even bothered to look into things such as miracles or things that just cannot be explained. Much like how the believed heads of some saints do not decompose or rot, even after centuries past. They have stuff like this on display (their heads are pale since all the blood dried up over time). For like the 20th time or so I'll say it again, there's a reason the Big Bang Theory is a theory. It's never been proven or disproven. There's evidence supporting the theory. But it does not prove it. As there is the same for a diety, which would be completely ignorant to say there isn't without looking into it.

Actually hes not contradicting himself! The universe is NOT expanding IN space because space itself is expanding. Thats what space time is. Its like space is a large balloon being inflated and we the universe (Galaxies, superclusters etc.) are dots on it. Using that logic, there is no center point of the big bang. The universe is expanding in all directions because space is expanding.  

Posted by Pimpsy G.

Actually hes not contradicting himself! The universe is NOT expanding IN space because space itself is expanding. Thats what space time is. Its like space is a large balloon being inflated and we the universe (Galaxies, superclusters etc.) are dots on it. Using that logic, there is no center point of the big bang. The universe is expanding in all directions because space is expanding.

Now when you say it, it sounds much clearer. But according to nuclear scientists, it began with fission (the splitting of an atom) which caused a chain reaction for more and more of itself to split even more and more that all caused a high amount in temperature too hot for fusion, thus explaining why hydrogen is left over. Since it was such a tremendous explosion (yes, I will use that word. I don't care because that's what fission does along with fusion) it continues to spread, much like your ballon logic.  

Posted by Blueh

Now when you say it, it sounds much clearer. But according to nuclear scientists, it began with fission (the splitting of an atom) which caused a chain reaction for more and more of itself to split even more and more that all caused a high amount in temperature too hot for fusion, thus explaining why hydrogen is left over. Since it was such a tremendous explosion (yes, I will use that word. I don't care because that's what fission does along with fusion) it continues to spread, much like your ballon logic.

What? I don't know where you are getting your information from (As no sane nuclear scientist would say that because it doesn't explain anything about the origin of space and time or contribute anything to the origin of the universe itself) but its not the big bang theory by any sense. There was no matter in the big bang as it was a singularity, an infinitely small and infinitely massive point of pure energy and heat... You really don't know what you're talking about. There is no way fission has anything to do with playing a role in the expansion of space and time and the creation of the universe regardless of what alternate theory you are trying to promote. If that idea actually had relevance to the origin of the universe it would be an accepted theory, but its not. I think you are severely misinformed considering you are saying its similar to my "balloon 'logic'" as they have literally nothing to do with each other. Its simply impossible and completely off topic.  

Posted by Pimpsy G.

What? I don't know where you are getting your information from (As no sane nuclear scientist would say that because it doesn't explain anything about the origin of space and time or contribute anything to the origin of the universe itself) but its not the big bang theory by any sense. There was no matter in the big bang as it was a singularity, an infinitely small and infinitely massive point of pure energy and heat... You really don't know what you're talking about. There is no way fission has anything to do with playing a role in the expansion of space and time and the creation of the universe regardless of what alternate theory you are trying to promote. If that idea actually had relevance to the origin of the universe it would be an accepted theory, but its not. I think you are severely misinformed considering you are saying its similar to my "balloon 'logic'" as they have literally nothing to do with each other. Its simply impossible and completely off topic.

Well, then complain to teaching society I guess.  

Posted by Blueh

Well, then complain to teaching society I guess.

Whats that? o_O  

Posted by Pimpsy G.

Whats that? o_O

Well, that's how they taught me it. So I guess even the big bang has different perspectives on how it occurred Much like religion.  

Posted by Blueh

Well, that's how they taught me it. So I guess even the big bang has different perspectives on how it occurred Much like religion.

I would beg to differ. That's not a legitimate perspective since it literally makes zero sense. So whoever taught you it didn't know what they were talking about. That's like saying me sneezing out the universe counts as another perspective to the big bang. Sure, I can say it, but that doesn't mean it stands as a legitimate theory that helps scientists understand how the universe functions and operates. Science does have different theories for almost everything though. But its not like religion in any sense. These theories literally serve no allegiance to a specific person as everyone is trying to understand how the universe works. The most reliable and specific answers based on the most concrete evidence at the time are the ones that the generally community eventually accepts until the next theory is proposed. So I don't know why you are comparing it to religion. Religion has no base on reality besides a lack of definite answers (not theories) and coincidences, it literally REQUIRES loyalty to something for people to believe it. I know because that's what faith stands for by definition, and that's what I lived by for the first 14 years of my life.  

I'm pretty sure someone certified to teach on the subject would know what they're talking about lol. And by religion and different perspectives I was comparing it to how it's like Judadism to Islam. They both believe there's a God, but they have their own perspectives on him.  

Posted by Blueh

I'm pretty sure someone certified to teach on the subject would know what they're talking about lol. And by religion and different perspectives I was comparing it to how it's like Judadism to Islam. They both believe there's a God, but they have their own perspectives on him.

Honestly, no they do not. I dont care if they are certified. It inherently is not a viable answer and they are misinformed. Please make sure you have a few sources on an argument before coming here and saying something ridiculous like the big bang exploded. And you didn't get my point about different religions and their perspectives on a god. There is no basis on reality for the concept of a god, its outside of the universe so the very concept of having faith requires a devout allegiance to, say, the Torah or the Qur'an based on your perspective. That's not how it is with science, no one has an allegiance to anything besides finding concrete evidence to the origin of the universe, regardless of how many theories it takes to get it right. I would gladly convert to one of these religions if someone provided specific concrete evidence that one of them is correct, but its allegiance to these things that separates religion and science.  

I have a quick question for you. A personal perspective question. Would you consider yourself as a follower of Confucious? Some people consider Confucism as a religion, but since there is no diety or talk of afterlife others do not. Yet like other relgions, has an ethics system. There's something that just "athesiem" doesn't teach (other than beliefs in Scientology and belief in no diety), morals and ethics. If we truly are just animals, why not act like them? This is why I believe humans must be superior for a reason. There are tons of animals that have been deemed to be very intelligent and think faster than humans yet they aren't capable of what we've done throughout time.

When the term Athiesm is used, the first thing one wouldn't think about is ethics.  

While we're still on topic here, I'm going to add in another tidbit. Another thing I believe separates science and religion is purpose. The problem I see with religion is that it already provides a finite answer, or a destination with no journey. You see, religion already tries to preach its teachings as the true, ultimate solution to the question of mankind. On the other spectrum, science provides us that journey, the quest to find out why we're here and what we're doing. If religion gave us the one, true answer, then the whole universe would be a pointless exercise. If you're at your destination, why make the journey? If you know the answer, why ask the question?  

Posted by Blueh

I have a quick question for you. A personal perspective question. Would you consider yourself as a follower of Confucious? Some people consider Confucism as a religion, but since there is no diety or talk of afterlife others do not. Yet like other relgions, has an ethics system. There's something that just "athesiem" doesn't teach (other than beliefs in Scientology and belief in no diety), morals and ethics. If we truly are just animals, why not act like them? This is why I believe humans must be superior for a reason. There are tons of animals that have been deemed to be very intelligent and think faster than humans yet they aren't capable of what we've done throughout time.

When the term Athiesm is used, the first thing one wouldn't think about is ethics.

Why would you assume that I'm atheist? Thats an allegiance to an idea. That is irrational. Morals and ethics are thought to come from cultural practices around the world to keep people in line and obey their leaders and not just kill everyone. Its necessary for survival since we are a weak species. With humanity, unlike any other species, working together in a very complex fashion is a VITAL advantage. And morals precisely create the mental help to get people to work together. Again this is not a fact. Its a theory and I do not have allegiance to it. Just because you don't know for sure whats happening behind a brick wall doesn't mean there isn't something there. You're just proving my point of allegiance. Since there isn't a concrete, factual answer to that question (we cant observe the history of the earth directly) a god from some religion must have had something to do with it. To me directly jumping to that conclusion for some reason with no concrete evidence rooted in facts is a form of irrationality.  

Posted by Talon

While we're still on topic here, I'm going to add in another tidbit. Another thing I believe separates science and religion is purpose. The problem I see with religion is that it already provides a finite answer, or a destination with no journey. You see, religion already tries to preach its teachings as the true, ultimate solution to the question of mankind. On the other spectrum, science provides us that journey, the quest to find out why we're here and what we're doing. If religion gave us the one, true answer, then the whole universe would be a pointless exercise. If you're at your destination, why make the journey? If you know the answer, why ask the question?

You bring up a good point. Thing is, ever since the dawns of time man has always believed different things. Like how each religion claims it to be true. As if there were multiple pathways leading to a forest and each said something awaited them at the end, but each told how if you should choose the other, you will not have the outcome you wanted or expected. While science, is not choosing any of the paths, but is working around the forest to see if they can uncover anything about it.

Posted by Pimpsy G.

Why would you assume that I'm atheist? Thats an allegiance to an idea. That is irrational. Morals and ethics are thought to come from cultural practices around the world to keep people in line and obey their leaders and not just kill everyone. Its necessary for survival since we are a weak species. With humanity, unlike any other species, working together in a very complex fashion is a VITAL advantage. And morals precisely create the mental help to get people to work together. Again this is not a fact. Its a theory and I do not have allegiance to it. Just because you don't know for sure whats happening behind a brick wall doesn't mean there isn't something there. You're just proving my point of allegiance. Since there isn't a concrete, factual answer to that question (we cant observe the history of the earth directly) a god from some religion must have had something to do with it. To me directly jumping to that conclusion for some reason with no concrete evidence rooted in facts is a form of irrationality.

My apologizes if I insulted you by jumping to conclusions about your personal beliefs. There is something more special about humanity than other species. There are probably nameless amounts of weak, intelegent species out there. But why us? Why are we the only ones to have a unifying force? If octopi learned to communicate with each other, they could easily be the most dominant species. They can take down sharks easily. But there's no push for them to work together. Why are we the only species with culture and ethics? It can't possibly be for no reason if none other couldn't.  

Bit off topic, but I still don't see why people widely consider humans to be a weak species. A weak species in relative to who, exactly? The droid army of the Empire? The random sea slug that can somehow photosynthesize?