Genesis - Big Bang mash-up

[Tinkerpeach]

For ridiculous there was the idea that
light things fall as fast as heavy ones.
Lots of things like your phone that nobody
would have believed.

Your versions of physics are kinda ridiculous.


But for truly, transcendantly, unutterably
ridiculous trying to explain everything by
concocting a thing, infinitely intelligent,
able to do anything, knows EVERYTHING
past present and future ( incl position
of every electron) who set everything up
so someday he'd have to kill himself
so it can forgive people for breaking
his rules. Like eating the wrong kind of
bird.

Ever wonder why we in China are
not rushing to convert?

Not my version.

For ridiculous there was the idea that
light things fall as fast as heavy ones.
Lots of things like your phone that nobody
would have believed.

Your versions of physics are kinda ridiculous.


But for truly, transcendantly, unutterably
ridiculous trying to explain everything by
concocting a thing, infinitely intelligent,
able to do anything, knows EVERYTHING
past present and future ( incl position
of every electron) who set everything up
so someday he'd have to kill himself
so it can forgive people for breaking
his rules. Like eating the wrong kind of
bird.

Ever wonder why we in China are
not rushing to convert?

It’s not my version it’s what the physicists at CERN say.

Ever heard of it?

https://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/origins/big-bang#:~:text=The%20universe%20began%2C%20scientists%20believe,titanic%20explosion%20the%20Big%20Bang.

 

[Pogo]

Not my version.

It’s not my version it’s what the physicists at CERN say.

Ever heard of it?

https://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/origins/big-bang#:~:text=The%20universe%20began%2C%20scientists%20believe,titanic%20explosion%20the%20Big%20Bang.

It may not be your version, but the CERN simple text explanation has the advantage that it corresponds to observable reality. Denying reality does not make your ideas look good to others. In fact it makes you look rather ignorant which reflects on everything else you say.

 

[YoursTrue]

It may not be your version, but the CERN simple text explanation has the advantage that it corresponds to observable reality. Denying reality does not make your ideas look good to others. In fact it makes you look rather ignorant which reflects on everything else you say.

"Science doesn't have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural." Does science disprove the existence of God? - The Science Behind It..

 

[Pogo]

"Science doesn't have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural." Does science disprove the existence of God? - The Science Behind It..

Your point, science deals with reality, you and your clone deny science and reality in favor of ancient campfire stories.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Your point, science deals with reality, you and your clone deny science and reality in favor of ancient campfire stories.

As you can see from this thread science doesn’t touch certain things because it has no answers.

The responses people have given is nothing but tech babble to hide the fact that they can’t explain what started the universe.

The best they can come up with is science doesn’t do that.

That makes no sense of course.

 

[Audie]

Actually....

Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence

You are actually wrong. Science is
quite good at disproof.

 

[Audie]

So has science disproven God yet?

Yes. Long since.
Assuming by "God" you mean the
one described in the Bible.
That "God" does not exist.

 

[Audie]

The nuclear energy ratio of hydrogen and helium atoms drives the material processes which animate the universe. Gravity draws clouds of hydrogen atoms together, eventually causing them to ignite under pressure.

Nuclear fusion in stars converts mass into energy, and as main-sequence stars burn off hydrogen, helium atoms begin to accumulate in the core. Via what is known as the Triple Alpha process, the nuclei of helium atoms fuse with highly unstable beryllium 8, allowing carbon and oxygen - the building blocks of life - to form.

I’m no astronomer btw. But the more I learn about the subject, the more miraculous I find the whole complex web of processes by which the universe unfolds.

Not all of us find value in confirmation bias.

 

[Audie]

Not my version.

It’s not my version it’s what the physicists at CERN say.

Ever heard of it?

https://www.exploratorium.edu/explore/origins/big-bang#:~:text=The%20universe%20began%2C%20scientists%20believe,titanic%20explosion%20the%20Big%20Bang.

Misrepresentation makes it your version.

 

[We Never Know]

You are actually wrong. Science is
quite good at disproof.

Science is actually good at rejection.

 

[Audie]

Science is actually good at rejection.

A. Why did you say it doesn't do disproof?
B. What do you mean by "rejection"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

How can something not have a beginning?
..
What made all that energy Consolidate in one point?

Ah! Taking up Shunyadragon on science! Are you not afraid of dragons?

 

[Audie]

Ah! Taking up Shunyadragon on science! Are you not afraid of dragons?

We like our kind of dragons here.
Others, not so much.

 

[Pogo]

Ah! Taking up Shunyadragon on science! Are you not afraid of dragons?

Irresistible force meets immovable object.

Ready the popcorn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He deserves credit, but he was also standing on the shoulders of giants as the saying goes.

Winner. That is how science is done.

 

[Audie]

Winner. That is how science is done.

Giants, and the undistinguished scirntists
who do the grunt work.

 

[We Never Know]

A. Why did you say it doesn't do disproof?
B. What do you mean by "rejection"?

Science doesn't prove or disprove. It accepts or rejects.

Examples...
-Evolution isn't proven, its accepted by the evidence.
-An elephant living on the moon isn't disproven, its rejected by the evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Winner. That is how science is done.

Actually there are strong arguments for that being a popular misconception

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Science doesn't prove or disprove. It accepts or rejects.

Examples...
-Evolution isn't proven, its accepted by the evidence.
-An elephant living on the moon isn't disproven, its rejected by the evidence.

I see where you're coming from, maybe.
As in how a quick goog gives "science cannot disprove"
or some such.

I think our way of looking at words and ideas here
is different from in the West.
Even "love" does not really translate
into Chinese.

The issue I suppose is in the concept
of absolutes, and whether there is such
a thing as an absolute.
Or only relative absolutes.
And by same token, relative proof.


For science
' absolute zero" is relative.
" proof" is ""beyond ( relatively) reasonable doubt"

Otherwise talk of absolutes, and, similarly,
" proof / disproof" being absolutes, go off
into philosophy, not science.

Science does better with practical and empirical
than in the dark fruitless maze of philosophizing
that cannot as Feynman noted, decide whether
there's anything inside a brick.

It's uncomfortable to say the ToE is proven though
few say evolution is not. Or at least clearly
demonstrable, for semantic /philosophical
ressons.

" World wide flood" cannot be absolutely disproved,
but only because there's no absolutes.*

* which statement itself is an absolute
And around and around.


I will stay with that science is good at disproof.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Ah! Taking up Shunyadragon on science! Are you not afraid of dragons?

I’ve never met one but I’m sure I would be if I had been born with the ability to feel fear but I wasn’t.

So I would probably laugh at the dragon and it would eat me.