Big Bang Theory debunked?

DayButtAssMans’s said:
I member this…

www.space.com

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings
www.space.com www.space.com

Ever notice how creationists focus on trying to misrepresent scientific consensus rather than legitimately trying to test it? Or even better yet, trying to prove their own claims?
Click to expand...

Like I admitted in the OP im not really smart or motivated enough to have figured it all out

I am a Christian and do believe in a world created by God but wouldn't necessarily call myself a creationist bc I don't but into the extreme parts that usually come with that territory.

But, yes, they generally require twisted logic or assumptions to make their theories seem plausible
 
fishinabarrel said:
Like I admitted in the OP im not really smart or motivated enough to have figured it all out

I am a Christian and do believe in a world created by God but wouldn't necessarily call myself a creationist bc I don't but into the extreme parts that usually come with that territory.

But, yes, they generally require twisted logic or assumptions to make their theories seem plausible
Click to expand...
If you’re religious, I don’t see how it matters either way. Big bang doesn’t disprove god, and doesn’t claim to. At the same time if something was discovered that completely shattered the Big Bang theory, that wouldn’t prove god (unless the sky opened, god came down and said “the big bang theory is wrong,” is what shattered it. I guess).

But you’ve got people like the guy who spread what ended up in the OP article that seem to base their career on taking things out of context. Why not just accept what seems to be true and go from there?
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
If you’re religious, I don’t see how it matters either way. Big bang doesn’t disprove god, and doesn’t claim to. At the same time if something was discovered that completely shattered the Big Bang theory, that wouldn’t prove god (unless the sky opened, god came down and said “the big bang theory is wrong,” is what shattered it. I guess).

But you’ve got people like the guy who spread what ended up in the OP article that seem to base their career on taking things out of context. Why not just accept what seems to be true and go from there?
Click to expand...

Can't remember the movie but it had kind of a funny joke/comment in it when a religious and non-religous persons were discussing the Big Bang Theory.

"If there is really an all powerful God responsible for creating everything, how would you expect the universe to react when He said Let there be Light"

I don't spend too much of my time trying to debunk science when it comes to religion. I prefer to spend my study trying to debunk the hatred/ignorance that my religion can perpetuate through it's texts.
 
fishinabarrel said:
Like I admitted in the OP im not really smart or motivated enough to have figured it all out

I am a Christian and do believe in a world created by God but wouldn't necessarily call myself a creationist bc I don't but into the extreme parts that usually come with that territory.

But, yes, they generally require twisted logic or assumptions to make their theories seem plausible
Click to expand...
You can believe in both at the same time really. God just snapped his fingers and outsourced it to Calvin!

1707841383353.jpeg
 
What we have is a multi-dimensional torus(es). Where the dimensions rub against one another is where "matter" appears and populates this space..."emergent". When you're dealing with multiple dimensions the Newtonian/Einsteinian way of imagining this shit goes out the window.

Eric Weinstein is on top of this stuff...as a layman I only grok a small percentage of what he throws down.
 
occupant said:
What we have is a multi-dimensional torus(es). Where the dimensions rub against one another is where "matter" appears and populates this space..."emergent". When you're dealing with multiple dimensions the Newtonian/Einsteinian way of imagining this shit goes out the window.

Eric Weinstein is on top of this stuff...as a layman I only grok a small percentage of what he throws down.
Click to expand...

Two problems. I don't know the Newtonian/Einstenian way so I'm certainly not gonna understand some new way.

Second, I don't even know what grok means
 
fishinabarrel said:
Two problems. I don't know the Newtonian/Einstenian way so I'm certainly not gonna understand some new way.

Second, I don't even know what grok means
Click to expand...
Welp....the standard model (Einstein) lacks something. The whole "spooky action at a distance"/quantum entanglement thing is the problem.
When two particles that are 'entangled' can communicate faster than light....Einstein's theory takes a major hit.
Weinstein pulls back the curtain and states that our current understanding/technology cannot move forward until we address what is going on when these little dudes are fucking with Einstein...and the scientific community at large seems to wallow in the crapulence of the spooky shit and will poopoo anyone trying to move forward.

....apparently you don't GROK what grok means.
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
I member this…

www.space.com

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings
www.space.com www.space.com

Ever notice how creationists focus on trying to misrepresent scientific consensus rather than legitimately trying to test it? Or even better yet, trying to prove their own claims?
Click to expand...
Testing it themselves represents a lack of faith. It’s why “creation science” is chiefly concerned with attacking legitimate scientific inquiry and use of religious dogma to substitute for qualified theory.
 
occupant said:
Welp....the standard model (Einstein) lacks something. The whole "spooky action at a distance"/quantum entanglement thing is the problem.
When two particles that are 'entangled' can communicate faster than light....Einstein's theory takes a major hit.
Weinstein pulls back the curtain and states that our current understanding/technology cannot move forward until we address what is going on when these little dudes are fucking with Einstein...and the scientific community at large seems to wallow in the crapulence of the spooky shit and will poopoo anyone trying to move forward.

....apparently you don't GROK what grok means.
Click to expand...
I was listening to a podcast just this morning talking about the future circular collider CERN wants to build, and how the best argument for not doing that coming from the scientific community is that we've gone about as far as particle physics will take us and all the resources should be put into quantum research.
 
occupant said:
Welp....the standard model (Einstein) lacks something. The whole "spooky action at a distance"/quantum entanglement thing is the problem.
When two particles that are 'entangled' can communicate faster than light....Einstein's theory takes a major hit.
Weinstein pulls back the curtain and states that our current understanding/technology cannot move forward until we address what is going on when these little dudes are fucking with Einstein...and the scientific community at large seems to wallow in the crapulence of the spooky shit and will poopoo anyone trying to move forward.

....apparently you don't GROK what grok means.
Click to expand...
He is definitely not a Valentine, much less, a Smith.
 
I like the “we are all cum in god’s tube sock” theory.
 
The youtube algorithm provided this for me today

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top