By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 24 July 2010
Edit Thread
Scoobes said:
Smidlee said:

Yeah , the Big Bang is like a balloon full of hot air. The more hot air the bigger the bang.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big-bang-universe-beginning-100319.html

 From the article:

 "I would say that there is 100 percent consensus, really,"

Consensus does not count as evidence for God but it sure does when it comes to the Big Hot Balloon theory.

"It means everything and anything that can happen, will," Steinhardt told SPACE.com. "So basically everything could be a prediction of inflation. This to me is a fundamental problem and we don't know how to get away from it."

Wow you can't miss when your target is as big as the universe. A funamental problem - you think.

You love to take things out of context. You did in the other thread on evolution too. Also in the same article 

"There is overwhelming evidence [for the big bang] – all of the predictions are true."

Fact is that there is evidence that supports the big bang theory. If new evidence is discovered then the theory will be revised, changed, altered or new ones created etc. On the other hand there is no evidence for the existence of god or a creator being. With the evidence available, which is the more logical to believe in at this point?

I know, I've noticed before that Smidlee likes to take quotes from articles and papers and present them massively out of context.

What gets to me is that in the article he just quoted from and the paper he quoted in the evolution thread, the quotes are extremely tenuously linked to his point. It's almost as though he has had to work very hard to find something that even remotely supports his point.

Surely when going to such an extent to try and find an out of context quote to support your view point, you have to read through hundreds of pieces of evidence against your point. He must have known that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the big bang.

Then again, he probably just got it from Conservapedia or Answers in genesis and didn't bother reading the article to see if the quote was out of context. I've see that done before.