Jump to: Board index
February 5th, 2012, 7:54 pm
February 5th, 2012, 10:27 pm
February 7th, 2012, 1:36 pm
February 7th, 2012, 4:48 pm
Who is suggesting that telling the truth will destroy our students education? Is it me? I have never heard that telling the truth will cause potential engineers or chemists to fail and our academic system will collapse.
February 7th, 2012, 7:23 pm
Incorrect. I want you to acknowledge the BB as a mere model whose description currently correlates more empirical data together with greater internal consistency than anything else available. As to what you want to call the facts of reality, that's your business, not mine.You want me to accept the BB as a fact and pander to deceptive description then think again.
The truth should be placed in open debate not meekly accepted by us simple folk.
Your implication that I would introduce unsupported science or faith driven dogma to replace these false concepts is simply slanderous.
I could understand your opposition if I was fundamentally wrong but all you do is want me to accept the crazy notion that science is beyond my ken so I should shut up and be grateful.
February 8th, 2012, 1:38 pm
Poster you were inferring I would prefer pseudoscience and magic to science. I find that insulting and distortion of my views.
But you are blaming science for this when you should be looking at those faith driven posters who have misappropriated science to their own ends.Part of my reasoning was because many faith driven posters use the false concept of the BB to support their beliefs.
You can not allow false concepts in science to influence or become part of education system.
You are now advocating the BB be taught to our children and used as reference. A concept that as you well know has been questioned by many eminent scientists.
Why is it that I who want honesty in science and the truth be explained, no matter what the consequence, is being accused of fear mongering and classed as a trouble maker?
February 8th, 2012, 5:06 pm
Useful fictions. Can we tolerate fiction when it dictates so much more than idle chatter.
February 8th, 2012, 6:04 pm
February 14th, 2012, 1:51 pm
There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.
February 14th, 2012, 3:01 pm
How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence?
February 14th, 2012, 4:02 pm
Agreed.No one can conclusively prove anything in life, science or nature friend.
BUT it deserves respect and not silly childish remarks.
Since my defense of particles and the Big Bang are specifically a defense of their scientific credibility, "proving" them is merely an evaluation of their current viability as models. In contrast, your standard of proof lies outside science and does not interest me in the context of this forum.I see you defend particles and the BB but you can no more prove them than discount a determined universe.
All you do is simply tell me they are a concept for us simpletons.
When debate looses respect then arguments begin, so bring it on.
February 15th, 2012, 1:48 am