Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cris, Jan 1, 2006.
Rubbish. HIV is proven too exist. There is only circumstantial evidence for the Big Bang.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A quick google will show you images of the HIV virus. Why do you say therefore that is has not been proven to exist?
geese dude ur like from what planet?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ? Earth? Yeah...we are on the same planet. I AM TRYING TO MAKE A POINT HERE. yes HIV exists....because there is proof...and yes Big Bang happened because there is so much proof. The statement is geared to deniers of facts, it is an opposite of what I believe in, and is used to reinstate the insanity of one's suggestion that HIV does not exist and big bang never happened.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The last 2 posts, did not understand your sarcasm ....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ooops , you posted before I did , Dragon ...
yup dragons fly faster than sputnik satellite. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyway , Ophiolite is right ... the big bang has never been proved , it is only a theory - this theory works sort of well , so it is a decent theory ...
But nobody knows the truth ......
Then again , if the big bang theory falls , then I am not sure, that plasmatheory would be my first choice - I prefer the cyclic model,
which starts with a gnab gib ......
Dragon, in the pseudo science section, people do deny the existance of HIV and the big bang. I thought you'd gone crazy for a minute.
Show me a better explanation for:
-doppler shifts indicating expansion at increasing velocity
-cosmic background radiation which was predicted and subsequently found more than a decade later
The big bang doesn't have to start at a singularity. It doesn't describe the origin of the universe just the evolution of the universe.
ya gotta have something in orderer to fill the gap for unknown...fill it with something known.
What's that dragon? I think the big bang is currently the best theory that explains the evolution of the universe. Sorry if i did not make that clear.
Is there any evidence supporting the plasma field theory? If a plasma field is the cause for redshifts and CBMR, surely we could think of a way to setup some sort of experiment/test? I see alot of talk:
But no evidence.
The evidence agaisnt the bb theory is increasing here's the latest report:
The BB never happened, what's left is politics! evidence from NASA's own satalite is coming in against the bb theory.
The "Big Bang" Is Just Religion Disguised As Science
Two World Systems Revisited:
Idiotic bullshit. Those sites are crap. I could post some UFO sites that tell you what the aliens know about the big bang. The confirm that it really happened.
Try some actual science websites that dont react to a non-event like missing shadow effects by declaring the BB dead.
Dont bull shit the messenger, bull shit the message. In other words seek concrete evidence against "the big bang never happened" theory. As it is becoming obvious by the evidence presented against BBT. Though you elonquently deny it, aparetly without even considering the evidence. Just by calling my websites "bull shit" does not contribute nothing to the debate, now does it?
Read something and learn something new;
**When ever a new theory of accepted norm is brought up, people will first redicule, then they flatly call the deniers, delusional, quaks, or loosers, when evidence is observed, it will be denied, untill concrete evidence is brought forth. Now do realize the BBT does not have concrete evidence, it's the accepted theory, your an atheist, you should know that the BBT fits the theistic nonsese of creation, thus why I deny this theory. The evidence presented for BBT is crumbling, you can deny it all you want, evidence will determine which theory is right.
Did God cause the big bang? That is what half a dozen new books about science and religion--whose authors range from a Reagan-administration official to an Israeli physicist to an elementary-particle-theorist-turned-Anglican-priest--are saying. The fact that the universe abruptly exploded into existence out of apparent nothingness some 15 billion years ago, they submit, means it must have had a supernatural creator.**
BBT is nothing more then theology disquised as science!!
Are you being satirical here? Or also coming out in support of those who claim there are legitimate experimental deficiencies in the Big Bang model? Because I think it can be claimed, by any scientist of worth, that not all evidence - in fact, a great deal of evidence - does not synch up with current conceptions of the Big Bang.
The intent is not satire, I'm only presenting another view of cosmology. One which does not come as empty claims, for it has presented evidence and observation discrediting BBT. However there seems to be a controversy in the scientific comunity, about futher exploring these claims.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community:
Hilarious, a list of who's who in the world of crackpots crafting a letter to the scientific community.
Then I am glad to count you amongst those who conceive of the Big Bang as slowly losing credit as a scientific theory owing to the newest observations.
That open letter mentions dark matter as one of the unproven phenomena propping up the big bang theory. It's my understanding that the existence of dark matter is suggested by orbital velocities of stars in excess of their galaxies' escape velocities. Does anyone know if the signatories take issue with these observations?
They consider it basically drawing for straws.
But dark matter is not simply a contrived 'phenomenon' invoked to salvage big bang theory. Its existence has been put forward in a different context.
Separate names with a comma.