I love science but comonnnn

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

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

[QUOTE="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

-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] Simpler, I hate that it's almost all based on experimentation.needled24-7

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="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

Darthmatt

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="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

Darthmatt

Wow... :|:?

Let me ask you... do you not think any light exists beyond the visible spectrum?

Invisible to the eye? you mean like its magic. I don't believe in magic.

Darthmatt

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Invisible to the eye? you mean like its magic. I don't believe in magic.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Invisible to the eye? you mean like its magic. I don't believe in magic.

Darthmatt

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

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

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

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="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

Darthmatt

The one thing I don't like about science is that there is a lot of information we learn that ends up being useless. A lot of resources are spent researching things like the age of the earth or the evolutionary process, when they would be much better spent on new engineering technology, and finding alternative sources of energy.

I believe all science. the end.

[QUOTE="Locke562"][QUOTE="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.

SamusFreak

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)

No Thats Argon that is accurate to 50,000 thousand years which is commonly mistaken for Carbon dating..... It's called Carbon dating but doesn't actually use the Carbon atom to work out the age of the rock.

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

edit also things like "Come on" and "Something tells me" are not real arguments so unless you want to come here with proof or evidence that actually contradicts what scientists say don't bother saying anything.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] lol but yeah, I mean, what evidence is it based on? not even a shred of logic to the conclusion that the Earth is 9.6 billion years old.Vandalvideo

This is how they determine crimes where there was no witness, they put together the pieces of evidence and reasoning to create the most likely outcome even though no one was there to see it happen.

avatar_genius

The Earth is 4.6 billion. Who the hell said 9.6 billion?MattUD1

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] lol but yeah, I mean, what evidence is it based on? not even a shred of logic to the conclusion that the Earth is 9.6 billion years old.Serraph105

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

[QUOTE="Locke562"] I thought carbon dating using Carbon-14 was accurate up to roughly 50,000 years.muff07

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)

No Thats Argon that is accurate to 50,000 thousand years which is commonly mistaken for Carbon dating..... It's called Carbon dating but doesn't actually use the Carbon atom to work out the age of the rock.

Ya, I mean, the earth is 6000 years old right?

9 billion years is just ...............too much. :? How can it be this old? Thats offensive to earth, which I am sure is sensitive with her age. I mean have some respect here...

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

In other words, the arbitrary nature of science here is that it connects arbitrarily existing facts, while religion arbitrarily creates the "facts" and then arbitrarily connects them.

There's huge difference.

This thread has managed to reach seven pages in length without the topic creator listening to a single reply.

While impressive, I think it's about time this thread was put to sleep. :P