Oddly enough, although I'd never heard of Fox News until joining this discussion site, out of the blue I got a FN headline in my inbox this morning which read (verbatim) 'Fox News: Killer asteroid destroys New York . . .' '. . . in simulation exercise.' FFS this drivel would be hilarious were it not so bloody ridiculous.
Yea, right off the deep end you are in this. It was an evacuation exercise by the Government, Fox News is just reporting on it. And most other media agencies around the world made posts on this. And you sail off as most of your posts in here right into CT land.
Theory means that it is the best description of reality available at the moment. Theories aren't definitive. The Big Bang theory exists because there is evidence for it. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe as happens on earth with explosions. It looks like the results of an explosion or at least an expansion. It quacks like a duck. It may not be a duck but it looks more like one than anything else. But at least there is evidence to support the theory.
Maybe. Nobody knows. The universe may be one of many universes. One can speculate but it doesn't go beyond speculation without evidence.
Sure evidence exists for the Big Bang. There are also other possible explanations for the phenomenon that makes up tha evidence. The point your missing is the acceptance of a scientific theory based on faith in conclusions drawn from the various phenomena which by coincidence, coincides very closely with an Abrahamic religion creation story.
Faith is not enough to be a theory. A theory is a possible explanation for observed phenomena (evidence) that requires study and experimentation. One does not experiment on a belief. Beliefs are not evidence. Abraham didn't know that all the things in the universe are receding from one another. Assuming he existed he gets kudos for being an effective leader but not a scientist.
I really could not care less if you blow off the fact that the bible and the Big Bang story is the same story.
Many Biblical stories are interpreted anew as knowledge increases by Christians out of necessity to maintain their chosen religion, this has been happening since The Sumarians started it. That is the beauty of religion in that it is all based on faith which can be whatever you want it to be.
Name and explain these other possible explanations. And you can only use explanations not based on faith. It must be based on the known laws of physics. Pure drivel. A scientific theory requires hard evidence that can be tested over and over again by independent scientists. Only after years of scrutiny and correct predictions - they must match the mathematically predicted values - and years of attempts to falsify the hypothesis, does it gain the status as a scientific theory. You don't have a CLUE how science works.
I like to watch a TV program called "The Universe" when I go to bed every night. One astro physicist said because the laws of physics falls apart he likes to be a contrarian, he likes to go against conventional wisdom and try to find alternative explanations for the phenomenon such as the red shift and cosmic background radiation. On the show he describes alternate explanations which are a bit above my pay grade and understanding. Regardless, you once again are evading my main point, that the Big Band which was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, remarkable coincides with the story of Creation of the universe by God in Genesis. Both require a certain amount of faith, whether that is faith in God or faith in scientific theory and understanding.
It would be good to know though; but there are some things mankind is destined never to know the answers to, and this is one of them. It's just that I think speculation on anything is a waste of time and cerebral effort.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with faith. It helps people. But it has no place in a scientific discussion.
So a guy on TV said so. Got it. And you don't even understand what he's saying but you believe it instead of the 99.999% of scientists. Got it. There are no alternative explanations beyond bogus claims and wild guesses. The Catholic Church has astronomers. They believe in science. That's why they have a Pope Scope. It had nothing to do with religion. It is what the scientific evidence shows.
I like to watch a program called Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey This show never aired in my country, but God Bless the internet. It's a revival of Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, and hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and produced by Seth MacFarlane (of all people). Not going to lie, it's because of this show that I've heard of The Royal Institution (of Science) in London and now me and a friend have tickets to some up coming talks there. If I became a member of this society @ £75.00 per term, I'd feel like Sir Issac Newton who was also a member.... I became a Tory and felt like Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.
Just without the need of conjuring up a creator out of thin air who for some reason never required a creator of it's own while it's followers chant "something can't come from nothing!" at the atheists.
Honestly, the nose No, but you argue out of ignorance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...no-alternatives-to-the-big-bang/#6524488f1cc5 Learn how to use Google.
And you are ignoring the reality of consensus of over 90% in order to distract with silly complaint of an obviously arbitrary intended point.
