Re: Very OT


"lawiser" <lawiserNO@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TVrMe.105158$5N3.68609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| lizzard woman wrote:
|
| > "lawiser" <lawiserNO@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

(snip)

| > 1. Hmmmm, exactly which method to you see as how the Earth came to be?
| >
| > Astrogeology is not my field but what I remember from intro geology is
that
| > stars and planets slowly accreted due to gravitational attraction from
| > matter that came into existence with the big bang. You know, you could
| > google up ten bazillion better answers than I could provide from my
memories
| > from ~1977.
|
| And just where did that Big Bang bang from?

That's a good question. But plugging that gap with another mystery isn't
going to get a rational person any further down the road to understanding.
And cosmologists may eventually figure it out. Or not.

(snip)

| > 3. And where is the PROOF of your method?
| >
| > I would direct you to the guys on the cutting edge of cosmological
research.
| > They have various evidences for their present theories.
| >
| But, evidence isn't necessarily proof. And there are sufficient other
| theories with sufficent evidence that still makes it all a big guess.

Okay?

| > 4. It's been a long time since my college science courses, but I seem
to
| > remember all those non-religious methods were still all theories ....
which
| > sometimes can be pretty close to mythology.
| >
| > You are using the word "theory" colloquially to mean uncertain when you
need
| > to be using the word in the scientific sense which means the best
| > explanatory mechanism in hand that captures the most data. When a
theory is
| > postulated and virtually no evidence is found that undermines it for
years
| > and years, it becomes a law. When a set of observations are viewed over
and
| > over again or are supported by several different and independent lines
of
| > evidence, they are regarded as facts. That man and great apes have a
common
| > ancestors and that all life exists within nested hierarchies is
considered a
| > FACT but the non-scientifically illiterate and is supported by homology,
| > physiology, molecular biology, etc. etc. etc..
|
| See above.
|
| Proof is taking sludgy nasty water, pulling samples, finding out what
| all is making it sludge and nasty. Run it through the purification
| process I've theorized. Find out if I've removed all the sludgy
| nasties. I've either proved or disproved my theory as to whether or not
| my water purification method works.
|
| Big Bang or any other means of a Universe coming into being is still
| just theory.
|
| So if a Big Bang happened ... why doesn't it continue to happen causing
| constant Universal recreation .....

Some have postulated continual or multiple big bangs. This isn't my field.
If it interests you, get a recent graduate level cosmology text book and
start perusing some top-shelf peer-reviewed journals on the topic.

The state of the science of cosmology, gaps and all, does no unhinge me to
the point of postulating an imaginary god. How would that provide any
further explanation than what we have now?

sharon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I Think
    ... posted by Bob Casanova: ... shred of evidence in support. ... as the "Big Bang". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with answersingenesis.com?
    ... >>> all these pieces of evidence is that they are not conclusive enough. ... the rest of us don't choose to "believe in" the Big Bang. ... were no point sources at the time the universe was cooling. ... Asking where the 'singularity' was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Very OT
    ... |> science class as if it was not pure mythology. ... which sometimes can be pretty close to mythology. ... Astrogeology is not my field but what I remember from intro geology is that stars and planets slowly accreted due to gravitational attraction from matter that came into existence with the big bang. ... And there are sufficient other theories with sufficent evidence that still makes it all a big guess. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
    ... >> the mass in the universe should result in a Lobachevskian pattern ... > but it is not true of big bang cosmologies. ... > True in that SR cosmology, but not in big bang models. ... >> (but this is not the main reason) The main reason is that in our ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading