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

Keep reading where they even admit a successful prediction can help both theories yet a failed prediction does no hurt to the theory. In cards this is called "Stacking the Deck" in your favor. Of course a theory will have "overwheming" evidence when contradiction evidence is disregarded.

As someome  wrote when someone stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing but believe in anything. They will go to great length to protect what they replace "God" with.

Sigh. Your three quotes in order.

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

Consensus isn't evidence in science, it comes from evidence though. The more evidence there is the more consensus there is.

"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."

He's talking about the multiverse theory here. It isn't saying that they can say anything and claim it's correct. You're taking it massively out of context.

 

As for your last part, that's because not finding gravitational waves doesn't contradict the theory - only some versions of it. Whether or not they find waves would determine which of the current version of the theory would be favoured. Those studies are a matter of refinement.

 

You really are hopeless for cherry picking quotes.

 

{These are all modern creatures with modern eyes.According to ToE Human didn't evolve from modern apes nor did modern eyes evolve from modern eyes. The article I read was about  a sea creatures which had these simple photoreceptors yet knew the direction of the light and swim toward it.}

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for. Any source on the article? I can't think how it would work unless the eye had some directionality such as a cup or pinhole.