I love science but comonnnn

i love science alot and always watch science channels its my favorite subject but i really dislike how they make these outrageous claims such as the earth was born 9.6 billion years ago..why cant they just admit they have no idea...what scientific claims do you find ridiculous?

the big bang theory. What proof have they seen that lead them to come up with this idea? is their some spot in the universe with traces of explosive residue? i doubt it

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation"

HMMMMMMMMMMM?

Something tells me that people who have a very limited knowledge of science and technology are going to make biggoted remarks about claims that have been accurately observed, tested, and experimented to the best of scientific methods.

Actually, they do know:
"Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54billion years(4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunarsamples."

Something tells me that people who have a very limited knowledge of science and technology are going to make biggoted remarks about claims that have been accurately observed, tested, and experimented to the best of scientific methods.

dbd333

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation"

HMMMMMMMMMMM?

dbd333

I hate how the History and Discovery channels have crazy hypothetical programs like What If Dinosaurs Still Ruled The Earth" and How Are We All Going To Die? I hate all the theories they come up with as to what trigger caused the events that caused the dinosaurs to die. I hate how they present a guess as to how life started on earth and just run with it in several hour long shows. More generally, I hate how most all science is guessing what happened rather than reading the effects of events and knowing what will happen. Simpler, I hate that it's almost all based on experimentation.guynamedbilly

The Universe / Last Days On Earth / Life After People

They've been doing experiments for a long time and it seems to work better than reading some religious manuscript.dbd333

Both are mostly guesses, but the scientific method has been able to prove more things than some text compiled by tribes that rose up from Canaanite decline.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I hate how the History and Discovery channels have crazy hypothetical programs like What If Dinosaurs Still Ruled The Earth" and How Are We All Going To Die? I hate all the theories they come up with as to what trigger caused the events that caused the dinosaurs to die. I hate how they present a guess as to how life started on earth and just run with it in several hour long shows. More generally, I hate how most all science is guessing what happened rather than reading the effects of events and knowing what will happen. Simpler, I hate that it's almost all based on experimentation.shoot-first

The Universe / Last Days On Earth / Life After People

Both are mostly guesses, but the scientific method has been able to prove more things than some text compiled by tribes that rose up from Canaanite decline.

dbd333

edge of mathematics and physics

[QUOTE="dbd333"]

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation"

HMMMMMMMMMMM?

motorstormhater

Could you explain that?

I understand you still go to school. It must be awesome to give you the vast knowledge required to insult one of the most daring and fascinating theories in history on a videogame forum. Congrats! :)

Because that is the closest thing I can compare your ignorance with. If someone carbon dated a rock and calculated a precise age for it, against your 'guessing' by observation, then this is what i see in this thread.

the big bang theory. What proof have they seen that lead them to come up with this idea? is their some spot in the universe with traces of explosive residue? i doubt it

motorstormhater

yes, it has been found as one of the strongest radiations.

And reading text that has been written in Babylon because they were exiled does not mean 1% of an answer at all.

99 percent correct? where did you get those odds? it seems like you just made a guess there

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation"

HMMMMMMMMMMM?

dbd333

This man speaks the truth. It annoys me that people on these forums (and IRL) ignore or call scientifically backed information bull just because they dont understand it or cant be bothered doing a small amount of research.

If I hear one more person say "the Big Bang makes no sense, how could nothing explode?", I will punch someone. Educate yourself on these matters before making foolish, sweeping statements full of errors.

agreed. why not just say "god did it" and leave it at that

i love science alot and always watch science channels its my favorite subject but i really dislike how they make these outrageous claims such as the earth was born 9.6 billion years ago..why cant they just admit they have no idea...what scientific claims do you find ridiculous?

cee1gee

I'd dislike such claims too. We all know it's 4.5 billion years old. Amirite?

agreed. why not just say "god did it" and leave it at that

wayne_kar

In the end I would choosefacts, or claims based on facts.I am not opposed to the thought of a God, but it can be quite hard putting something that has never been proven up against something that has (quite literally) Tons of Evidence.

Carbon dating is very darn effective at giving an actural age to things, and is used for a great deal of things, not just to determine old rocks.

The window of origin increases the older the thing is (the timeline it could be created in gets longer, the older the object), but in the end it is a heck of alot more accurate then well... alternatives (looks at his dusty books in his bookcase)

What is so outrageous about that? Carbon dating has given them the idea of it being that old. Its not a definite figure but its probably in the area.Big_Bad_Sad

Actually C-14 (Or Caron dating as it's commonly reffered to) is only acurate to 14,000 years due to the relativly short half-life of the Caron atom. The oldest rocks in the world have been dated to2.45 Billion years old using Uranium and other Unstable isotopes half-lifes to atain date. After2.45 billion years it goes down to theories on how long certain sequences of events are thought to have take eg. Cooling of Earth from molten fire ball to a cool solid outter crust.

But the Big Bang is based on all are current knowledge on the cosmos and universe and predictions/simulations from computers. It's much like how people thought the world was flat, a new idea could emerge from new information.

But the biggest thing that (Almost) proves the Big Bang theory is that The further away a selestial object is the further the shift to the red side of the spectrum it is, I.e the further away something is the faster it is moving away (Also meaning the universe is expanding) and this must have occured from a single point.

[QUOTE="dbd333"]

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation"

HMMMMMMMMMMM?

motorstormhater

If I hear one more person say "the Big Bang makes no sense, how could nothing explode?", I will punch someone. Educate yourself on these matters before making foolish, sweeping statements full of errors.

ithilgore2006

more like spawn :P

[QUOTE="Big_Bad_Sad"]What is so outrageous about that? Carbon dating has given them the idea of it being that old. Its not a definite figure but its probably in the area.muff07

Actually C-14 (Or Caron dating as it's commonly reffered to) is only acurate to 14,000 years due to the relativly short half-life of the Caron atom. The oldest rocks in the world have been dated to2.45 Billion years old using Uranium and other Unstable isotopes half-lifes to atain date. After2.45 billion years it goes down to theories on how long certain sequences of events are thought to have take eg. Cooling of Earth from molten fire ball to a cool solid outter crust.

But the Big Bang is based on all are current knowledge on the cosmos and universe and predictions/simulations from computers. It's much like how people thought the world was flat, a new idea could emerge from new information.

But the biggest thing that (Almost) proves the Big Bang theory is that The further away a selestial object is the further the shift to the red side of the spectrum it is, I.e the further away something is the faster it is moving away (Also meaning the universe is expanding) and this must have occured from a single point.

actually it is not too far apart from a religions belief...both are mostly guesses..which is why religion and science always argue with one anothercee1gee

[QUOTE="dbd333"]They've been doing experiments for a long time and it seems to work better than reading some religious manuscript.cee1gee

Don't complain too much. Without crazy science, we wouldn't be here wasting time on the Internet.

[QUOTE="cee1gee"] actually it is not too far apart from a religions belief...both are mostly guesses..which is why religion and science always argue with one anotherFunky_Llama

i love science alot and always watch science channels its my favorite subject but i really dislike how they make these outrageous claims such as the earth was born 9.6 billion years ago..why cant they just admit they have no idea...what scientific claims do you find ridiculous?

cee1gee

Yeah facts and evidence... grrr i hate it!

the big bang theory. What proof have they seen that lead them to come up with this idea? is their some spot in the universe with traces of explosive residue? i doubt it

motorstormhater

the big bang theory. What proof have they seen that lead them to come up with this idea? is their some spot in the universe with traces of explosive residue? i doubt it

motorstormhater

Well in a sense, there's a kind of "explosive residue" EVERYWHERE in the universe. That's essentially what the cosmic background radiation is.

[QUOTE="muff07"]

[QUOTE="Big_Bad_Sad"]What is so outrageous about that? Carbon dating has given them the idea of it being that old. Its not a definite figure but its probably in the area.Locke562

Actually C-14 (Or Caron dating as it's commonly reffered to) is only acurate to 14,000 years due to the relativly short half-life of the Caron atom. The oldest rocks in the world have been dated to2.45 Billion years old using Uranium and other Unstable isotopes half-lifes to atain date. After2.45 billion years it goes down to theories on how long certain sequences of events are thought to have take eg. Cooling of Earth from molten fire ball to a cool solid outter crust.

But the Big Bang is based on all are current knowledge on the cosmos and universe and predictions/simulations from computers. It's much like how people thought the world was flat, a new idea could emerge from new information.

But the biggest thing that (Almost) proves the Big Bang theory is that The further away a selestial object is the further the shift to the red side of the spectrum it is, I.e the further away something is the faster it is moving away (Also meaning the universe is expanding) and this must have occured from a single point.

correct, it is accurate to around 50000-65000. after that the peices become to small to work with. there are many though that have much long half-lives( and ones with much shorter)

The title is funny, as they say it is good to get behind something if you wish to stab it in the back. Textbook demonstration there.

I agree with the big bang theory but it's silly to think that it happened by accident.

Most of my issues are with psychology. Mostly because in terms of science, it is just an infant and no empirical determinations are possible at this point. I think a lot of it is just plain BS, but they have to start somewhere, like back when chemists thought everything was made of 4 elements.

[QUOTE="Big_Bad_Sad"]What is so outrageous about that? Carbon dating has given them the idea of it being that old. Its not a definite figure but its probably in the area.muff07

Actually C-14 (Or Caron dating as it's commonly reffered to) is only acurate to 14,000 years due to the relativly short half-life of the Caron atom. The oldest rocks in the world have been dated to2.45 Billion years old using Uranium and other Unstable isotopes half-lifes to atain date.

Most of my issues are with psychology. Mostly because in terms of science, it is just an infant and no empirical determinations are possible at this point. I think a lot of it is just plain BS, but they have to start somewhere, like back when chemists thought everything was made of 4 elements.

DaBrainz

Dude, do you even know what you're talking about? :?

[QUOTE="cee1gee"] actually it is not too far apart from a religions belief...both are mostly guesses..which is why religion and science always argue with one anotherFunky_Llama