Reply With Quote
Hey, Avante posted a video he hasn't watched!
Golly!
That'll show us!
Hmmmm?
Hey, Avante posted a video he hasn't watched!
Golly!
That'll show us!
Just this one time stupid...
How about our tennis player at the end of the video? Yep, wrong as usual.
What does a tennis player have to do with anything?
I'd rather read a peer reviewed article from an astrophysics/astronomy journal.
Can you give me a link to one from the filmmaker?
Thanks in advance.
However, when accretion disc energy-production mechanisms were successfully modeled in the 1970s, the argument that quasars were too luminous became moot and today the cosmological distance of quasars is accepted by almost all researchers.
what i find incredible about avante's mockery of science is that science has always been its own harshest critic
So I need to find some article or video talking about how many scientists now debunk the Big Bang theory, right?
Be right back.
This took mere seconds, and I had a choice..
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
In a nuts .....
Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.
Last edited by Avante; 10-22-2014 at 11:53 PM.
Right. That's how science got to where it is today -- by challenging and often ting on the science that came before it.
Creationism and the backdoor creationism of intelligent design start with a conclusion, not a hypothesis and any evidence that doesn't support the foregone conclusion is ignored or condemned. That's why to is subject to ridicule from anyone working in actual science.
Just a peer reviewed article from an astrophysics/astronomy journal by your hastily Googled hero filmmaker..
avante should i waste my time posting youtube's that debunk creationism too? then this can turn into a spamfest.
or you can just look at peer reviewed work or the scientific consensus.
you can't have a 70+ page discussoin, then post a random 10 minute video you didn't even watch (nor would you understand if you did) and then say "debate over"
So once upon there was nothing, just a huge black void, then out of nowhere.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....that was the start of it all. So here came the Earth and seas and inthose seas were little fishy thing, those littlefishy things got tired of being goobled up by big fishy things sone day a male and a female decided to see what was on that beach, from these little fishy things we got the rat, the tosd, the ant, the spider, the goart, the fly, the eagle the Watusi, the pgymy........hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh ye that's fr easier to buy than a Master Designer.
Well, go ahead and post the peer reviewed work supporting your brand of creationism.
We'll wait.
How many times have I said.....nobody knows what really happened? As we can see there are tons of.....yes there is a God, God doesn't exist, yes the Big Bang happened, the Big Bang never happened, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!avante should i waste my time posting youtube's that debunk creationism too? then this can turn into a spamfest.
or you can just look at peer reviewed work or the scientific consensus.
Come on man, it isn't real real obvious we simply don't know about anything ....really. Nobody can...PROVE.. and we all know it so why all the crap about it?
I've talked to some religioius freaks far far FAR more intelligent than you are, they believe in God.
If you aren't curious about any of this, fine.
Shut up and leave it to the people who are.
Go make an almanac list somewhere and let the adults talk.
you can't pretend the "yes the big bang happened" and the "the big bang never happened" voices are equal, at least among the scientific community, ie people actually in the know
BINGO BANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
Voices are equal because we can't prove anything, which is my point. So we just latch on to what story we need to make us feel better about things.
the only reason the big bang theory exists IS the evidence. without the evidence, there would be no theory to begin with
But you say your theory is better, even though you have yet to produce one iota of peer-reviewed support.
Turns out you know less than most and your opinion is easily dismissed.
So how come we see soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much of this?
Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz3GwUTT5Xq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There is no end to this...
What do you mean "soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo much of this?"
That's the only one you found, and it hasn't even been peer reviewed yet.
You're in way over your head, dude. Stick to the lane assignment almanacs OK?
Is Mason Googling for you?
You are just making another list.
No end in sight...
her work is relatively new and hasn't been reviewed yet... here's an interesting article discussing it. and avante... this is the last sentence of it.
here is the article in full: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/30/4196212/unc-professor-pokes-theoretical.html“They might have trouble adapting, but that’s the beautiful thing about science,” he said. “We, as scientists and astronomy educators, are excited for change.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
