What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Obelix]

Oh step down off your soap box.

 

Who's talking about using the internet?.. what do computers have to do with my reasons for calling scientists arrogant?.

 

This is the problem with the "well educated", their inability to think outside of the box debilitates them, they're reasoning is restricted by the flawed text book theories that their scientific peers, claim they know, but cannot explain.

 

Utter rubbish.

 

The ability to think outside the box is one of the very defining ideas of scientists - the ability to take existing knowledge, to comprehend, extend and axpand that further beyond existing knowledge is what science is all about.

 

You on the other hand argue from a position of ignorance - you are either unable or unwilling to learn so as a defence you claim that people who can are conceited or arrogant in order to cover up and deflect people from your own shortcomings. It's a particularly common viewpoint sadly that all scientists have to content with, and one that invariably never changes.

[danot]

:huh:Are you claiming that to be educationally stunted is a bonus?

No, not a bonus. I don't see why it should be a bonus.

 

 

Posted by skins

Which alternative text books are you using to bolster your argument?

Haven't got any alternative text book theories, I just don't buy into the 'but it must be true, a scientist said so', line of reasoning.

[artisan]

no and neither can you but does that mean that no one can ?

 

no one at all ?

 

something like 6.5 billion people on the planet and not one of them can hold this concept in their heads ?

 

and every last one of these 6.5 billion people has been asked this question so you can state this as an indisputable fact ?

 

I can state this definitly, yes.

Every human brain has a start point, conception, and a stop point, death.

Therefore we are hard wired to start and stop.

How can a concept such as that we are tryining to discuss be within our feeble wits?

[esme]

and according to you everybody is a feeble wit

[danot]

Rubbish. We even give it a name telling you what it is - it's cold, it's dark, and it's matter not energy....

What's a name? Why's it there then?

[plekhanov]

Deliberate stawman!.. I haven't attacked science.. I attacked the attitude of scientists.

 

Can you see where you went wrong?

Err no by posting nonsense like this, this , this and this.... as you have done throughout the thread:

 

"But it isn't a viable conclusion. How can science accept a flawed theory that cannot be explained within the laws of science, furthermore, how can they then dismiss the possibility of a creator, which would be just as likely given that the common theory was formed without any logical explanation or scientific evidence ?."

 

"Incorrect Jimmy. scientific logic(which is what I'm questioning)has everything to do with it. Simply because it cannot support it's own claim that nothing exists beyond the expanding universe, nor can it satisfactorily explain the question that I've asked."

 

"That would all depend on there reasoning, scientists conclude in mysterious ways."

 

"The scientific line of thought. Scientists speak with certainty whilst not being certain at all."

 

You've attacked both science and scientists.

 

Your predominant ground for attacking both science and scientists seems to be that you don't understand complex concepts you've seemingly only read about on creationist websites combined with your unshakeable confidence that anything you don't understand is "flawed". And you accuse scientists of "arrogance"

[danot]

That you can make such a cretinous claim simply demonstrates yet again that you lack even the most basic understanding of the incredibly complex and often counter-intuitive concepts you are trying to debate.

 

Read any basic book on cosmology and you'll learn of all manner of observations and experiments that The Big Bang model is built upon.

Guess work!.. At present we can only make presumptions, because it cannot be tested on, because it cannot be observed.

[Obelix]

Guess work!.. At present we can only make presumptions, because it cannot be tested on, because it cannot be observed.

 

As has been repeatedly stated - the big bang can be observed, and is, frequently. It's testable against lab experiments. It's falsifiable. It meets all teh demands of sceince. It's called the cosmic microwave background. Google for Penzias and wilson, the COBE satellite for a few starters. It is fact something that I personally have observed, and that anyone can observe if they so choose. All you need is equipment that an average radio amateur would have and a little intelligence.

[Obelix]

What's a name? Why's it there then?

 

I don't know. Why are you here?

[plekhanov]

Guess work!.. At present we can only make presumptions, because it cannot be tested on, because it cannot be observed.

Even by your low standards this is most dishonest.

 

Just a few posts back a measurable prediction this "guesswork" generated which was tested against and confirmed by later observations was pointed out to you.

 

Yet here you are again pretending that something which you know already has happened cannot happen.