FightingSmile said: Science is love, science is life
enough said |
Science is my waifu.
Only fools... | |||
Rush in. | 4 | 40.00% | |
say that there is no God. | 4 | 40.00% | |
4 your loving no more. | 2 | 20.00% | |
Total: | 10 |
FightingSmile said: Science is love, science is life
enough said |
Science is my waifu.
Soriku said:
It's not a hunch. Look up the definition of hunch: a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than known facts.
Evolution and the Big Bang are based on facts.
|
And here I thought it was only a casual word for theory.
But the singularity where did it come from that caused the Big Bang though? And I already digested evolution it was quite tasty.
Skidonti said:
|
WagnerPaiva said:
|
Lego Jesus, is there like a Church set or something? xD
tiffac said:
Lego Jesus, is there like a Church set or something? xD |
It is custom made. Some dude made the whole Boof of Revelation with LEGOS:
http://www.bricktestament.com/revelation/index.html
WagnerPaiva said:
|
Aww I should have known it was not official. Then again it would probably cause some sort of scandal or whatever anyways. Sometimes people don't see the fun in things anymore.
tiffac said:
And here I thought it was only a casual word for theory. But the singularity where did it come from that caused the Big Bang though? And I already digested evolution it was quite tasty. |
As far as I know there currently isn't any workable theory for anything prior to the big bang. To explain why I think I should explain a bit about scientific theory and how it works (as I understand it anyway, I could be wrong I am not a scientist) at least on a simple level. You see a scientific theory has to be based on observable phenomina and be able to make falsifiable predictions of some form of test (eg an experiment or an observation of a naturally occurring phenomena) amoung other things. Now falsifiableis a key point to note, that means that whatever test you use to verify the theory has to be able to "fail" and have a result that doesn't match your prediction. All scientific knowledge is refutable given enough evidence, it should be understood that it is the best current explination based on currently available information. But also keep in mind that any scientific theory has to be independantly verified with verifiable tests and observations, so even if it's not the necesserily complete picture it is reliable for making predictions based on the available data.
So for the Big Bang theory that posits that everything in the current observable universe originated from a central point and "exploded" out to form the universe as it currently exists. The theory began to explain why distant galaxies appeared to be moving away from the earth. The theory predicts that matter in the universe should be moving away from a central point etc. Edwin Hubble observed that the redshift effect could be used to mesure the relative distances of cosmalogical bodies (eg stars and galaxies) from the earth. This observation led to the observation that the other galaxies were moving further away from our vantage point. Which is consistant with a universe that "exploded" out from a central point. Additionally the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. Now that is a very simplified version, I don't even pretend to understand the full theory and there are a wide veriaty of different peices of evidence that scientists have used to verify the theory over the years. Oh and interesting side note the theory that preposed what became the big bang theory was a catholic priest and scientist named Georges Lemaître.
Now as for where the singelarity that created the big bang came from. It is impossible to observe or test anything that happened before the big bang as we currently understand it. After all as far as we currently know everything we can currently observe or test was created at the big bang. All matter, energy, and even time is belived to have been created at that point.
Now to use a relatively simple analogy as a TL:DR as this ended up far longer than I expected. Lets say that that you come home to find that your front door has been kicked in. Now you use your past experiances and the available information to make a hypothesis that someone has broken in and robbed your house. That is a safe assumption I think, but there are other possibilities so you devise a way of verifing your hypothesis. Pretty simple you just have to check your stuff to see if anything is missing. Apon entering your house you find that your TV is missing. Ok so your hypothesis accurately predicted that something was stolen from your house. Now as you didn't observe this first hand you can't be 100% sure, after all while it is possible this is all a setup for a punked style reality TV show that is increadibly unlikely. So you conclude you should call the cops and report the break in and theft. And there was no need to identify who the thief was, how they got there, or why they robbed you to use your theory to conclude you needed to call the cops.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
Soriku said:
The idea that some almighty being really gives a shit about some evolved apes (us) masturbating or eating pork or something on this infinitesimal blip of the universe called Earth is so laughable.
|
The evidence (comic microwave, expansion, cool down, etc) but the conclusion may be wrong, I don't think it is, but can't assure... to assure something won't ever be revised, changed maybe totally denied is more in the religious branch than science.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
tiffac said:
Kinda like... Okay too much of this show is maybe bad for my health lol! |
I'm not certain how can you associate observation of natural phenomenon, detail describing, mathematical models and exaustive test with "hunch" (altough sometimes the source of the first guess or where to look could have been a hunch). Cientific Method isn't a hunch, as much as Dinossaurs haven't been caried in the ark.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
DonFerrari said:
|
Yeah the Dinos got left by Noah must be too big to carry at that time. Where was the Enterprise when you need it lol!
But no one is certain of the singullarity right? So that's got to be a hunch. Aliens too :)