"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."
What an ignorant fellow you are.
Really?
What do you think the word "ignorant" means?
Oh? You're going to "prove" what "... an ignorant fellow [I am?]
This will prove to be rich.
I don't have to provide the evidence; you will.
Oh but there is. You provide it below.
Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.
Thanks for the evidence.
Despite the erroneous assertion that there's some "exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics", thank you for the validly logical conclusion as well.
You see PoliticalChic, despite your intellectually dishonest quote-mining, there's nothing about the Big Bang Theory that necessarily excludes the existence of this Creator, or Designer or God of yours, there's just nothing in it that requires one--and that's the problem that superstitious retards have with it.
Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the
superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs, and that's just
retarded.
No. It just allows for such a suggestion to still be made by the superstitious, but the evidence does not suggest any such thing.
Except you fail to demonstrate ANY of my beliefs are faith.
These assertions are what makes you intellectually dishonest. You just project your intellectual paradigm, in which verifiable evidence and valid logic are irrelevant, on other people. That's retarded.
But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."
Now, why is that?
Class?
No. It's because my beliefs (where founded upon evidence and valid logic) aren't retarded, and trying to demonstrate they are will only serve to expose you for a retard.
You're joking, right?
This is the best you can do?
Might as well throw in the towel.
1. "Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic
a. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li
inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations
trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less
.very different from observations. Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
b. The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod. Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, Radical Theory Takes a Test, Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
Thanks for the evidence. "
Possibly you really don't know the meaning of
" discrepancy" or "considered a problem for the original model" or "revised calculations" or "various reevaluation proposals" or "inconsistencies between" or "more inconsistent with observations rather than less"
or "very different from observations" or "a shaky measuring rod."
And you see the above as proof of scientific models???
If I were a Liberal, I'd be calling you a liar...but I realize that the Left has that
term trademarked.
Here, let me explain it to you in a manner that one of your ability might understand: the translation from science-speak is "Ooops!"
2. I really like the direction this argument is taking.
Let me suggest to anyone interested in judging the science vs. theology questions, take a look at the currenct Harper's (
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)) in which M.I.T. physicist Alan Lightman, makes a fascinaing admission, and then poses science's answer....
a.
Professor Lightman (atheist) explains that there are fundamental forces that seem to 'fine tune' our universe so as to allow life.
"according to various calculations,
if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the existence of life."
Guess where this idea is leading?
b. "...the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and
even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability
. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles. Ibid.
So, more scientists suggesting what this thread suggests, huh?
3. OKey-Loki....you're gonna like this part:
Know how guys like you, you know, those with a fear of admitting the possibility, answer this?
Mulitverse!
No longer a Universe with a consistent set of fundamental principles as revealed by physics!!!
a. "If the multiverse idea is correct, then
the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principlesto explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they areis futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that
simply isnt true." Ibid.
Now there must be
an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of principles!!!
4. You buying this?
No single set of fundamental laws, such as science has expounded all along???
No???
You're busted, Lok!
Our univese is too perfect for life to have been a pure accident, and if there is no God, then there must be infinite varieties of univereses with different fundamental priciples...and that means that science was dead wrong all along!!!!
OK...since there is
no proof of any other universe based on alternative fundamental principles of physics........what has just happened to your view that science is not based on faith or 'superstition'?
Shredded, huh?
Tough day for you, Lok?
You have that deep-seated fear of being labelled a 'retard'...
...luckily for you, I don't use that term.
Hey...take heart...it makes friend G.T. look just as dumb.
