My god's name is Ecneics. At the beginning of time, my God set forth the Big Bang into motion, inadvertently allowing everything we know today to come into existence. RELIGOLOGIC
-The theory of gravity is a solid part of science as we understand it anybody who doesn't accept it is regarded by most of the people in the community is regarded essentially as a crack-pot-
i dont get it, if your in the scientific community and you dont believe the best theory avaliable and instead refer to superstition, yep absoloute crackpot.
thats like saying Im a mechanic but i dont believe that punctures deflate tyres i believe that its little pixies sucking all the air out. You should know better.
@696codeman actually the Big bang THEORY is simply not proven, It is accepted because its the best answer they can come up with. They have no other answer outside of And God Created! And they refuse to accept that because they cant put God on their scientific table and do experiments on Him! So, Does that mean God is NOT the reason for the existance of everything? NOPE! it means Science would rather deny the possiblility of God because they cant seem to fit him on the TABLE!
@abeeftec No, science does not deny the possibility of any god. You do not seem to understand what science is. Science is based on evidence, not on beliefs. There simply is no evidence for the existence of any god, let alone for any specific god. If you believe in any specific god, the burden of proof lies with you and you will need to come up with evidence to support your claims. Thus far no one has ever managed to provide empirical evidence for any god at all. It is that simple.
Despite the fact Humanists control the worlds governments schools and media and have systematically censored Biblical Christianity and real Science from the masses, replacing them with Humanistic philosophies and pseudo scientific evolutionary mumbo jumbo which most people blindly believe, all they can do when challenged is hide behind their censorship and willing ignorance, calling people names!
@mikeeboy1000 Just took a look at your Youtube profile and the majority of your favourites are "ghost sightings", yeah, I'm gonna trust YOUR views on "real science"
@mikeeboy1000 Enough of the sad sap Christian whining. Humanists control the government? In the US the government is full of Christians. They have congressional prayers, the 10 commandments are in the Supreme Court building, there are signs of Christian influence in the government everywhere. Look at the GOP field right now. Bachmann? Perry? What about G. W. Bush? Also, I find it most Christians who argue evolution is a blind faith, have no science training and don't know the basis of evolution.
there is no argument that the Universe is expanding, but you cannot prove that the rate of expansion is the same today as it was then, so the supposed age is purely hypothetical. also, the hypothesis that the massive Universe was condensed into a single point a few milimeters wide is just comical and cartoonish. Even if that was true, where did this point come from--did it just magically appear?
@ungalranga : Actually, I've met quite a few openminded, scientifically oriented and peaceloving free thinkers who end up supporting view points very similar to Eastern philosophy, most in particular Taoism, Advaita Vedanta or similar views. Not all religion is based on silly superstition and make believe stories. Not all religion is irrational. For some things science has no answer (yet) and Eastern philosophy can fill those gaps without contradicting science.
It's funny how atheists come to whine here. Like you haven't taken quotes outta context! Everyone who claims that evolution theory or big bang is part of science should check his facts again. Scientific proving of something means that you can observe, measure and repeat that event. As it is, evolution remains a theory. It has never been observed. Or have you seen a cat turn into a non-cat and breeding afterwards? The same goes with big bang THEORY. That's hilarious. Life started out of nothing..
@r3eat "Scientific proving of something means that you can observe, measure and repeat that event.”
We observe transitional fossils, others can see them to.. we observe the evolution of bacteria.. others can observe that too... we have the real world applications in medicine and you benefit from and goes through rigours testing too.
Funny eh? Your cold shot is a product of understanding evolution.
Scientific theories are based on evidence and observations.
@NightHawkBomber001 You said "hey bud. Just thought I’d let you know that the odds of you being right (assuming any single religion is true, as non could be) are less than 0.000001%.. and thats being generous."
You claimed "you atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 933904020404839399392303059393 9 chance of happening.”
Insulting people is never a good idea, especially when you are not much better off. you have less than 0.000001% about being right about your religion. That is being generous and I can show you how I got that number. Where I assume your your huge one was made up
@r3eat Its ok though.. “have you seen a cat turn into a non-cat and breeding afterwards?” --> its obvious that your thoughts on evolution are influenced by a popular 90’s cartoon (pokemon) rather than the actual science.
Please get an education before trying to debate these subjects 0.0
Do you fools honestly think that the noodly appendages of the spagettimonster couldnt create a universe? The spagettymonster gave his only begotten meatball for your sins!
The big bang is a really retarded part of science as we understand it and anybody who accepts it is regarded by most of the people in the community essentially as a crack-pot.
@MrFyrfly What an ignorant, foolish thing to say. Can you back up any of what you said? Why is it retarded? (Scientific arguments only please; not the usual fundie blather.)
Where did you get the idea that "anybody who accepts it is regarded by most of the people in the community essentially as a crack-pot".
You make bold, empty assertions. What is your evidence?
@TheQRabbit Because, all explosions make are mess, unless God used the big bang, I cannot except such illogical ideas that explosions create order, now i'm open to a theistic version of the big bang, but never atheistic, everything coming from nothing is just ridiculous.
@MrFyrfly I'm pretty sure what I'm about to say is going to fall on deaf ears but here goes. You really should learn some physics before you jump to the conclusions that you have. The big bang was not an explosion. Matter can be created. It happens in the LHC every day. And, everything may have come from nothing. Search YouTube for "Cosmic Inflation and the Accelerating Universe" and watch it. It would help, though, if you first knew some physics. It's sad your mind is so closed.
@TheQRabbit My mind is closed? Sir, do you know me? I do not have a closed mind, I accept homosexuality, except part of evolution (Skeptic about some though) This is one of the reasons I believe in God, atheists force me to with their know it all mentality, and inflation has NO evidence. Believe me, I love science as much as the next guy, I know a bit about physics for a 16 year old. And no matter what you say, this cannot come from nothing and happen by chance, there is a God, and it's Jesus.
@MrFyrfly Here's one reason I think your mind is closed. You say, "there is a God, and it's Jesus". Fine, how do you know that? Let's cut to the real answer to that question. It's that your parents raised you to believe that. You never gave two seconds thought to that question yourself. If you were born elsewhere in the world you would be worshiping a different god and just as sure you were right. That's why I think your mind and anyone who adopts their parents religion blindly, is closed
@TheQRabbit Yes, my parents do believe in God. But didn't raise me to. I made a choice based on the evidence. And I believe in the Christian God because the resurrection has too much evidence to be ignored. And nice Richard Dawkins argument, you're so creative. Also, do you believe Jesus exists?
@MrFyrfly You don't believe that the big bang or inflation occurred because of lack of evidence (you say) for which there is plenty, yet you believe in the resurrection because of something written in a 2000 year old book and call that evidence. Alien abductions are more believable than that. Jesus might be a historical figure but does not exist now (anywhere).
BTW, I used that "Richard Dawkins argument" 30 years ago before I ever heard of Dawkins. It's a compelling argument.
@MrFyrfly Partial list of evidence for the big bang: 1-cosmic microwave background radiation 2-uniformity of CMBR 3-relative abundance of light elements 4-expansion of universe Evidence (partial) for inflation: 1-uniformity of CMBR across universe 2-fluctuations in CMBR (caused by quantum fluctuations) 3-large scale structure of universe 4-existence of matter Contrary to what you say, the BB is universally accepted and acceptance of inflation is growing rapidly. You're lying saying otherwise.
@TheQRabbit But inflation has NO proof. I've even heard scientists say it. Matter can be created by God, that's not proof. And expansion can be explained by God, because if you think about it due to gravity the galaxies should be getting closer, not expanding,also, the cosmic background radiation can be explained by supernovas. I never said I totally reject it, just an atheistic version, I've seen too much evidence for God, and can't accept that we happened from odds and came from nothing
@MrFyrfly Where to begin... Just about everything you said is just plain wrong. Please, please, please, learn some physics before you open your mouth. The only thing you said that was correct is that inflation has no proof. Actually, no physical theory has proof. Proof is a concept in mathematics. Yes, inflation has some open questions but it explains a great deal. There are fewer open questions every year. It doesn't need God shoved in as an explanation.
@MrFyrfly 1) Galaxies are getting farther apart because space itself is expanding. The amount of matter in the universe, dark and normal, plus dark energy will determine whether the expansion slows and reverses or accelerates. It appears it will accelerate forever.
2) The CMBR most emphatically cannot be explained by supernova. It is black-body radiation created by the early universe before atoms formed.
3) Inflation says matter can be created from nothing. Watch the video I referred you to.
@TheQRabbit But inflation has no evidence so that cannot be tolerated as an argument. Also, what about the resurrection of Jesus, tons of evidence for that. And is dark energy the same as dark matter?
@MrFyrfly I explained the evidence for inflation in an earlier posting. Dark energy is not the same as dark matter. Dark matter is believed to be an exotic form of matter that interacts with ordinary matter almost exclusively through gravitation. There are a couple of theories that may explain it. LHC results will help. Dark energy is more mysterious. It has antigravity properties and is not well understood but its effects have been observed. They are hot topics of research.
@MrFyrfly I'm not sure what you mean by a common element but it you mean something on the periodic table, it can't be that because every kind of ordinary matter we know of absorbs and emits light which dark matter doesn't do. There are 4 forces in nature; gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. Ordinary matter responds to at least two of these. Dark matter appears to respond to gravity only. Possible weakly to others. See /watch?v=EJtJ7Q0cV34 for an interesting video on dark matter.
@MrFyrfly I don't know. It is highly speculative. It is based on string theory and string theory hints that it may be possible that there exists other universes in other dimensions. You're young enough to possibly see some interesting developments come of it. An interesting, yet speculative book on the subject is "The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind, a Stanford physicist.
@MrFyrfly One more thing I will say is that the multiverse theory, if it turns out to be correct, will solve a couple of very big problems in cosmology which I don't want to get in to because I'm not versed in the subject well enough to present a good argument about it. But you may want to pay attention to it because it surely is interesting. The PBS series, NOVA, had some good programs on it. Maybe you can view them on their website.
@TheQRabbit Well, if the multiverse theory is correct, I don't see how we could ever prove it because we're in a separate universe, which is kind of like a separate reality, it's like using a rock in new york to gather evidence for a rock in California that we have no idea what it's like or what it consists of, so if they can't find evidence for it at this point in time of human history, I doubt they ever will. But then again, you never know.
@MrFyrfly You would have to infer the presence of other universes from secondary effects. This is getting way beyond my comfort zone but my understanding is that in string theory (the basis for the most prominent multiverse theory), there are subtle effects with gravity across multiple dimensions into other universes that may be able to be detected. Also, there are some effects that may be able to be seen in particle accelerator experiments such as the LHC. Stay tuned - its very interesting.
@TheQRabbit I intend to keep tabs on it. If there are other universes and we discover them, it may as well be the greatest discovery ever. But, there are a lot of things in the universe we don't know about, so it could be anything.
who, astrophysicists? lol..some exploit data and research to sell science books, but the information they use to write their books is from solid, genuine scientific research.
you'd be surprised how much of it isn't bullshit..science is under so much scrutiny. therefore, a lot of it would be plucked out and labeled bullshit by many willing scientists looking to falsify scientific theories. there's a reason why a lot of established theories are widely accepted..because the rest of the scientific community cannot find major flaws. claims that stand even under the vigourous scrutiny of the scientific process, are very likely factual and genuine.
@itzahazylife Inflation for example. No evidence. Many believe it. Hauls in the money. I'm not saying all science is, I like to study it myself first.
well, wait a minute here..something needs to be clarified..there isn't any empirical evidence of inflation, but there is indirect, circumstancial evidence..inflation is the best and simplest explanation we have, and it has yet to be falsified..there is very good reason to adhere to it. there are many reasons to expect that it occured.
are u fucking crazy?..that's most science?..science is the most elite method of finding truth..how can u sit there and not respect it?..look how much it has figured out about how things work and how nature works...it's got a great track record of figuring things out. nothing else even comes close to it, yet u sit there and undermine it, like it's this vague method of finding truth..pathetic, fucking pathetic.
and ok, there's historical evidence of jesus..jesus the man existed..so what?..where's the evidence that he was divine?..where's the evidence that he actually performed magic?..where's the evidence that he was the son of god?
@MrFyrfly Id highly suggest you dont study the sciences, your brain may be to badly damaged by bronze age dogma to get a grasp. My advice is to stick with creationism and keep promoting it! Keep up with the quote mining and the debunked arguments, keep up with the talk of salvation and the end times, it only serves the causes of reason and science better, because most people simply arent as stupid as you are. Eventually your little fringe cult will recede into nothing as people stop listening
@spacecowboy95 You are such an idiot. I don't believe in the big bang because of my faith in Jesus. It's because of lack of evidence! I believe in good science. Like, evolution. Not crap like this. I suggest you and your little atheist cult shut up, I'm sick of you guys being prejudice against other's beliefs.
@MrFyrfly lack of evidence for the accepted model of the universe? You really are stupid.
But that aside, believing in Jesus already puts you in the dunce category anyway, so whatever you say beyond that can be considered bullshit by definition.
Ha, you actually think a guy rose from the dead and turned water into wine? And the best you can do to prove this is point to some 1st century texts written by people who thought evil spirits roamed the desert? YOU ARE AN IDIOT, a gullible fool.
@spacecowboy95 Wait. You are so prejudice. Judging somebody for their beliefs. I'm not going to show you evidence, because all atheists deny it. You're no better then a racist. And there is evidence for it, I just don't see enough. If there were more I'd accept it. And the Bible actually is enough evidence. It's historically accurate. Now go be racist elsewhere. Your soul is forever condemed...
Yes, thats exactly what im doing, you believe stupid things for stupid reasons and im calling you on it. If you cant take it then fuck off. Your master Jesus told his followers to expect to be mocked for what they believe, because their beliefs to many people will sound stupid. So get over it. You're an unthinking faith head, evidence is meaningless to losers like you because you have already decided what is true beforehand. Nice scare tactic btw
@spacecowboy95 And I don't believe in Christ for stupid reasons. I believe in Him from what has happened to me. I'd be a huge idiot to not believe. And you atheists are such hypocrites. You guys bitch about getting judged by Christians. Look at what you're doing!
@MrFyrfly were doing scientific progress. okay, you can read your 2000 year old bronze age book of fairy tales, hate, and hypocrisy while i read about quantum mechanics.
@MrFyrfly actually a study shows atheists have read the bible and they tested them and Christians and Christians had lost. it was interesting. although i do think your comment is not a lie in any way but i believe it is a contradiction. i have seen many scientific errors and impossibility's in many of the story's. im not sure how you agree with science but at the same time believe in a book that is in accurate. usually some one is one or the other but not in this case.
@spacecowboy95 I just don't want to argue. Just, why are you judging a 16 year old you've never met? You know you're proving Jesus all the more by doing this.
@MrFyrfly Mate, I dont care whether you understand why i'm attacking you or not. I couldnt give a shit. I'm telling you what you are, that's all.
Just listen to yourself, "you're proving Jesus all the more by doing this", Its actually quite sad that you have been reduced to such a level. You obviously dont know or understand the concept of proof. And you wonder why christians like yourself are a laughing stock all over the internet? Get used to being ridiculed kid, its the 21st century.
@spacecowboy95 Dude. Leave me the fuck alone. People like you get your asses knocked out where I'm from. So quit judging. And we get judged because you atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 9339040204048393993923030593939 chance of happening.
@MrFyrfly "...atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 9339040204048393993923030593939 chance of happening."
So you admit it is possible? So in other words, given enough time, it is a guaranteed occurrence, however unlikely. Thank you, you just proved the atheists' point, as prior to the universe, there was all the time there could be to constitute a sufficient fluctuation to make this universe!
@MrFyrfly hey bud. Just thought I’d let you know that the odds of you being right (assuming any single religion is true, as non could be) are less than 0.000001%.. and thats being generous.
@MrFyrfly Newton also believed in Alchemy, does this mean that alchemy is true? Clearly its possible to do real science while holding crackpot beliefs.
See? Another stupid argument from an intellectual midget. This is too easy.
@MrFyrfly There are many scientific, peer reviewed papers on inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. There are also many YouTube videos, some of which are very good, that help explain these in layman's terms. If you're interested, do a YouTube (or a google) search.
What in the world does Big Bang cosmology have to do with atheism? Big Bang implies the universe had a beginning, isn't that what you low IQ religious nutjobs want?
@ClamCrunchy i think they are impliying that evolution is a part of the big bang. which it is. and that all athiest belive in evolution and are calling people crackpots who dont belive in it. but whatever i try not to worry about it.
@ClamCrunchy I...Couldn't agree more... I may not believe in the big bang, but not because of my belief in God, I'd like more evidence. Or, maybe I haven't seen it all. But I do hate how people say the big bang is atheistic, especially when it's in the Bible.
I don't even understand why what he said was bad. If you don't believe that the universe is expanding outwards from a central point, you ARE a crackpot. It's been well documented.
DANGER! THIS CHANNEL CONTAINS CREATIONIST LEVELS OF STUPIDITY. THIS LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS TOXIC TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE. DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL UNLESS YOU HAVE A VERY THICK SKULL.
@DraconianKindness Okay, I may not be a creationist, I believe in everything science. And I'm Christian. But, if they want to believe this let them. You have to respect other people's beliefs. Don't call their beliefs stupid, that's just ignorant. They actually have some nice points that atheists, and even myself sometimes ignore.
@DraconianKindness, Why do Atheists like yourself feel the need to hack youtube and give themselves so many thumbs? Is it some insecurity issue or just plain dishonesty?
@DraconianKindness : ... or if you see the humor in this kind of stupidity. Ray Comfort is such a moron his only way to defend his views is by repeating the same over-rehearded lines again and again, which is especially obvious when people don't respond to his questions the way he expects them to since he's barely able to come up with ANYTHING original at all. I just love to see his stupid *** get pwned by anyone from a simpleminded mormon or a common Jew to a neonazi. How does he do it?! ;-)
no energy can be created or destroyed only changed. the big bang if it happed was not the beginning. the idea of a beginning is STUPID! the big bang if it happened was only a big change, no more no less. the real crackpot is someone who says that nothing can become something. LOL...
@djgenfish I will "solidly" second that motion. Guth's leap of imagination might go down as one of the most important in the history of science. Cool guy too. His lectures are accessible and delivered with very little sense of his own importance; a sharp contrast, in fact, with many religious leaders.
Physicists and cosmologists DO actually say this: That the universe came from nothing.
BUT, they don't mean "nothing" in the colloquial sense. They actually mean vacuum energy; zero-point energy; dark energy; the cosmological constant-- These are all different terms for the exact same thing-- namely, the energy in "empty" space.
This energy is what makes up over 80 % of the universe's total energy-- which is 0 incidentally; the reason it could come from "nothing" in the first place
Thank you, these idiots at way of the master need to read some of these comments. I find it hard to beleive that no one has corrected them to their face on this subject
@Wittgensteinism Me thinks you missunderstand the Big Bang. It seems that you imply that there was space before the big bang which is contradictory to the theory itself which proposes that space-time 'expanded' into being from what we could think of as a single 'point' or coordinate. Also Dark Energy or Dark Matter is not the same as zero-point energy.
@TylerBoBylerFyler LMAO!! wow. First, dark matter and dark energy are two COMPLETELY different things. And YES, dark ENERGY IS zero-point energy. It is the energy in "empty" space, which because of this energy, isnt actually "empty" at all. Second, the conventional Big Bang theory says NOTHING about whether the was any space or time outside of the singularity. It, like evolution, only deals with the moment of exponential expansion after the initial fact of the singularity
@TylerBoBylerFyler Virtual particles in the quantum foam (the spacetime outside of the singularity) created fluctuations of Planck time and sizes. These quantum foam fluctuations give suffient explanations for the origin of the singularity. All energy is still conserved since energy is converted from dark energy into visible energy; the energy remnants of the Big Bang. Besides, did i ever imply spacetime outside the singularity before now? NO
@Wittgensteinism Ok so i'm going to have to adress your pointes here: 1. First you imply the I said that dark energy and dark matter are the same things. I did not say that. Granted I have never heard of "Dark energy" I WOULD find it a resonable the make the assumption that they were since matter and energy are different words for the same thing under different circumstances. 2. As I have heard it told the big bang was the origin of space-time but to your credit I cannot find any support for it
@Wittgensteinism ... 3. Everything else you said didn't really deal with anything I said before so perhaps you should have payed closer attention to what I had actually written. Now returning from my points to analyze what you have written: I can find no source to varify your claim that dark energy and dark matter are any more different than visible matter or energy (though this may not have been your claim at all, forgive me but I can't quite tell from your wording) yet I can find two sources..
@Wittgensteinism ... That condradict such a claim. Secondly I would just like to ask you if you have a source for this claim that "energy is converted from dark energy into visible energy" because I could not find any and I am curious as to exactly how this happens and if/when visible energy is converted back. Lastly I would just like to point out how much of a dick thing it is to 'lmao' at what is not a mistake but a very simple, harmless case of misinformation. Don't be such a bitch.
@TylerBoBylerFyler ok good response. You have a Wittgensteinian way of writing that i like; very logical and numerically ordered, so i'll do my best to reply likewise. 1. Dark matter is simply a type of matter that is only detectable through indirect observation i.e. it's gravitational affect on galaxies. It is called dark MATTER because it has mass, thus also having a gravitational affect that we DO detect..
@TylerBoBylerFyler .. By contrast, dark ENERGY is the energy in a vacuum. Lawrence Krauss is credited with calculating/proving that the universe's rate of expansion is actually INCREASING rather than decreasing. The culprit? Energy; Dark energy/Vacuum energy/zero-point energy/the cosmological constant. This is the energy literally permeates the fabric of space-time so that there is no "true-vacuum"..
@TylerBoBylerFyler 2. Cosmologists now agree that there was no singularity at present at the big bang, thus no need for a "beginning" of space-time. Rather, there was a quantum foam of vitual particle popping in and out of existence. 3. The total energy of the universe is thought to be zero, which is how energy is still conserved by the big bang; it was merely the conversion of energy into another form. The more dark energy, the less visible energy and vise versa...
@TylerBoBylerFyler 3. Dark energy accounts for 74% of the universe's total mass-energy, dark matter accounts for 22% and the remaining 4% is everything else in the universe that we can observe; stars, stellar gas clouds, planets, people etc. You're right that dark energy doesn't convert into visible energy. I shouldn't have given that impression. In fact, dark energy could turn out to be simply us not entirely understanding gravity once again..
@TylerBoBylerFyler We and the rest of the visible universe that resulted from the big bang, constitute a 4% bit of pollution in comparison to the rest of the invisible "dark" universe. The big bang is not that mysterious. It's simply the result of quantum foam fluctuations. The absolute "nothing" of space before the big bang was simply too unstable and resulting in a fluctuation that produces a universe of relatively insignificant stuff.
@ QueueBionique. Validate your 'there is no god' scientifically. If you can, you're smarter than Richard Dawkins. If you cannot, your condescending slant is unwarranted.
@boledle: The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those making the big assumptions. I just state the obvious, there is no god, if you believe in god(s) then you show me proof.
Before I am ready to accept your theory, you better have a rather compelling amount of evidence to submit, not just the circumstantial evidence, but verifiable evidence.
I don't believe in fairy stories nor follow blindly the tools of mob control laid out by religious zealots.
There's a book called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in painful detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes in the 20th century alone. More than all religious wars in all centuries combined. Name 5 protestant Christian countries that have rampant poverty, illiteracy & human rights abuses. Lenin, "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." Name 5 Buddhist, or 5 Hindu countries, or 5 Muslim, or 5 atheist countries that do NOT have the same.
So for that we are going to close down on all the atrocities committed under the christian domination and forget how the Holy siege was a direct actor in the Vietnam war? Or how it wiped hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years, wiping WHOLE civilizations and always coming back like a cancer to devour at the human spirit.
Religion, any and all religion are a scourge that humanity MUST at all cost get rid of. No more crutches, no more tools of mass control...
@ queue. Nope, we're not going to do anything. Wouldn't change anything. I was merely pointing out statistical facts and general trends over long periods of time. All good scientists appreciate that sort of thing. Sure religion has been misused, as everything else has. That's evil in people, evil that atheism has a tough time explaining.
Atheism doesn't have anything to be misused. If any atrocities have been committed under "atheist" regimes, it is not the lack of theism that is the problem, but the evil in the people behind the regime.
I think religion has a tougher time explaining because their holy books are filled with evil.
@Pandamonk69 Science doesn't know how to describe it which is why the mathematical concept of a 'singularity' is used. I've heard many descrips of what that is & not a single concrete description of what caused the expansion or how. I don't attack science for simply having unknowns, nor do I just throw God into them. But this, & more importantly, origin of life & Darwinism is being taught in schools as Fact and Truth so there is *plenty of burden of proof on science's shoulders as well.>> II
It's not a mathematical but a gravitational singularity. The expansion was caused by the immense energy contained in the singularity.
There certainly is a burden of proof, and they are providing it. The point of science in schools is to teach the most up-to-date, accurate and evidenced science. This is why evolution and big bang theories are taught and abiogenesis isn't yet (as far as I know).
Plenty of burden of proof on science? All the burden of proof is on science. It's just that for just about any theory you can name, science meets that burden of proof.
Part II. Focusing on what's not the point changes nothing. You've not put a dent in a single argument I've made in all the threads here. In the Material world, (that science can't account for), you have: physical laws, gravity, matter, chaos & fractiles, energy, light, forces, rocks, water, snowflakes, weather, etc. On the INFO side you have: symbols, copies, purpose, competition, intent, truth, falsehood, judgment, codes replication, language, messages, rules/breaking rules > III
Part III expectations, instructions, meaning. Now, If you were to travel to another planet, everything you find there would be just Material. Material things don't replicate, or make copies of themselves or anything else. Rocks & snowflakes & sand dunes exhibit no purpose. They change but they don't evolve. They obey laws of physics & nothing more. There is no meaning, symbols, instructions, or info. No Right or Wrong, just Is. So ... where did "information" come from?
The information that you are talking about (which I think are better classified as ideas or conceptual things) are all things that can only be appreciated by a consciousness or mind, which you know, being as you drew that distinction. So, if we find out where the mind comes from, we can find out where the rest of it comes from. Where does the mind come from? There are so many sources on possible abiogenesis scenarios and the development of the brain I wouldn't know where to start.
My god's name is Ecneics. At the beginning of time, my God set forth the Big Bang into motion, inadvertently allowing everything we know today to come into existence. RELIGOLOGIC
haruga 2 months ago
I was about the thumb down the video when I found that ratings are disabled. However, I was lucky enough to thumb up "The Stupid! It Burns!".
otonanoC 3 months ago
-The theory of gravity is a solid part of science as we understand it anybody who doesn't accept it is regarded by most of the people in the community is regarded essentially as a crack-pot-
2naruto1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really don't like when people disable the 'like/dislike' buttons. It's shows how pathetic they are.
DannySinfield 9 months ago 9
The Stupid!
It burns!
05swanbe 9 months ago 8
i dont get it, if your in the scientific community and you dont believe the best theory avaliable and instead refer to superstition, yep absoloute crackpot.
thats like saying Im a mechanic but i dont believe that punctures deflate tyres i believe that its little pixies sucking all the air out. You should know better.
696codeman 10 months ago 6
@696codeman actually the Big bang THEORY is simply not proven, It is accepted because its the best answer they can come up with. They have no other answer outside of And God Created! And they refuse to accept that because they cant put God on their scientific table and do experiments on Him! So, Does that mean God is NOT the reason for the existance of everything? NOPE! it means Science would rather deny the possiblility of God because they cant seem to fit him on the TABLE!
abeeftec 1 month ago
@abeeftec No, science does not deny the possibility of any god. You do not seem to understand what science is. Science is based on evidence, not on beliefs. There simply is no evidence for the existence of any god, let alone for any specific god. If you believe in any specific god, the burden of proof lies with you and you will need to come up with evidence to support your claims. Thus far no one has ever managed to provide empirical evidence for any god at all. It is that simple.
awende 1 week ago
Despite the fact Humanists control the worlds governments schools and media and have systematically censored Biblical Christianity and real Science from the masses, replacing them with Humanistic philosophies and pseudo scientific evolutionary mumbo jumbo which most people blindly believe, all they can do when challenged is hide behind their censorship and willing ignorance, calling people names!
mikeeboy1000 10 months ago
@mikeeboy1000 People blindly believe evolution? That's just so backwards it's funny.
MetalliCxZero 10 months ago 2
@MetalliCxZero So is your comment.
TheTrojantroy 8 months ago
@mikeeboy1000 Just took a look at your Youtube profile and the majority of your favourites are "ghost sightings", yeah, I'm gonna trust YOUR views on "real science"
FreakBoi2008 8 months ago
@mikeeboy1000 Enough of the sad sap Christian whining. Humanists control the government? In the US the government is full of Christians. They have congressional prayers, the 10 commandments are in the Supreme Court building, there are signs of Christian influence in the government everywhere. Look at the GOP field right now. Bachmann? Perry? What about G. W. Bush? Also, I find it most Christians who argue evolution is a blind faith, have no science training and don't know the basis of evolution.
RonPaul1776 5 months ago
This fool just called me a crack pot.............he gonna die.
supersonic71097 11 months ago
Why is it assumed that if you do not believe as the Christians represented by the posters of this video do, that you are an atheist?
friedie1jeff 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD DID IT!
whatevtube 1 year ago
FAILLL
whatevtube 1 year ago
Wow. Your channel is ignorance incarnate. Read something besides the Wholly Babble.
Christheatheist1 1 year ago
@Christheatheist1 ~ snds familar ~ hiddee-hooo
TJae1 1 year ago
@ungalranga Also, do you really want to believe that your great great x999999999 grandpa was pond scum?
mariomario8888 1 year ago
@mariomario8888 yes
flamingninja90 1 year ago
@ungalranga that's very VERY sad... you won't be saved :(
mariomario8888 1 year ago
It is a fact that the universe is expanding from a common point, fucking turd.
mit871chell 1 year ago
there is no argument that the Universe is expanding, but you cannot prove that the rate of expansion is the same today as it was then, so the supposed age is purely hypothetical. also, the hypothesis that the massive Universe was condensed into a single point a few milimeters wide is just comical and cartoonish. Even if that was true, where did this point come from--did it just magically appear?
zigzagzoo12 1 year ago
@zigzagzoo12 I don't know; which is the best answer at this moment. =)
mit871chell 1 year ago
@zigzagzoo12 The age is measured from microwave background radiation.
EliasJordan3 1 year ago
@zigzagzoo12 I think you are truly mal informed. Go read wikipedia. Enough said.
Xen8 11 months ago
@ungalranga : Actually, I've met quite a few openminded, scientifically oriented and peaceloving free thinkers who end up supporting view points very similar to Eastern philosophy, most in particular Taoism, Advaita Vedanta or similar views. Not all religion is based on silly superstition and make believe stories. Not all religion is irrational. For some things science has no answer (yet) and Eastern philosophy can fill those gaps without contradicting science.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
Right when he got cut off at the beginning he said ,BUT.
mit871chell 1 year ago
What's the point of this video. Of course creationists are crackpots. It's like posting a video of someone saying that grass is green.
davidls11 1 year ago
@davidls11 Atheists are the same. Both atheists and creationists. Theistic evolutionists make the best cases.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
It's funny how atheists come to whine here. Like you haven't taken quotes outta context! Everyone who claims that evolution theory or big bang is part of science should check his facts again. Scientific proving of something means that you can observe, measure and repeat that event. As it is, evolution remains a theory. It has never been observed. Or have you seen a cat turn into a non-cat and breeding afterwards? The same goes with big bang THEORY. That's hilarious. Life started out of nothing..
r3eat 1 year ago
@r3eat
Successful troll is successful.
FanaticTroll 1 year ago
@r3eat "Scientific proving of something means that you can observe, measure and repeat that event.”
We observe transitional fossils, others can see them to.. we observe the evolution of bacteria.. others can observe that too... we have the real world applications in medicine and you benefit from and goes through rigours testing too.
Funny eh? Your cold shot is a product of understanding evolution.
Scientific theories are based on evidence and observations.
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
@NightHawkBomber001 RIght about what?
MrFyrfly 10 months ago
@MrFyrfly what?
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
@NightHawkBomber001 You said "hey bud. Just thought I’d let you know that the odds of you being right (assuming any single religion is true, as non could be) are less than 0.000001%.. and thats being generous."
MrFyrfly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFyrfly
You claimed "you atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 933904020404839399392303059393 9 chance of happening.”
Insulting people is never a good idea, especially when you are not much better off. you have less than 0.000001% about being right about your religion. That is being generous and I can show you how I got that number. Where I assume your your huge one was made up
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
@r3eat Its ok though.. “have you seen a cat turn into a non-cat and breeding afterwards?” --> its obvious that your thoughts on evolution are influenced by a popular 90’s cartoon (pokemon) rather than the actual science.
Please get an education before trying to debate these subjects 0.0
thanks
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
It's quit clear that these guys (and the owner of this channel) have no idea of science and how it works.
krissyeh 1 year ago
@krissyeh I'm a devout Christian... And I agree.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
Could all the creationists in here please go and die from a heroin overdose.
Okay? Everyone gone? Right! Lets start thinking rationally for a fucking change!
KeithUnderneath 1 year ago
crack pot, huh?..the inflationary unverse theory is now widely accepted as being probable..
itzahazylife 1 year ago
The fool says in his heart "there is no spaghetti".
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 hahahahahahhaha
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
Do you fools honestly think that the noodly appendages of the spagettimonster couldnt create a universe? The spagettymonster gave his only begotten meatball for your sins!
DutchNordic 1 year ago
Garbage absolute garbage. So explain to me how we can know the universe by using the supernatural which isn't testable.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
The big bang is a really retarded part of science as we understand it and anybody who accepts it is regarded by most of the people in the community essentially as a crack-pot.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly What an ignorant, foolish thing to say. Can you back up any of what you said? Why is it retarded? (Scientific arguments only please; not the usual fundie blather.)
Where did you get the idea that "anybody who accepts it is regarded by most of the people in the community essentially as a crack-pot".
You make bold, empty assertions. What is your evidence?
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit Because, all explosions make are mess, unless God used the big bang, I cannot except such illogical ideas that explosions create order, now i'm open to a theistic version of the big bang, but never atheistic, everything coming from nothing is just ridiculous.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly I'm pretty sure what I'm about to say is going to fall on deaf ears but here goes. You really should learn some physics before you jump to the conclusions that you have. The big bang was not an explosion. Matter can be created. It happens in the LHC every day. And, everything may have come from nothing. Search YouTube for "Cosmic Inflation and the Accelerating Universe" and watch it. It would help, though, if you first knew some physics. It's sad your mind is so closed.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit My mind is closed? Sir, do you know me? I do not have a closed mind, I accept homosexuality, except part of evolution (Skeptic about some though) This is one of the reasons I believe in God, atheists force me to with their know it all mentality, and inflation has NO evidence. Believe me, I love science as much as the next guy, I know a bit about physics for a 16 year old. And no matter what you say, this cannot come from nothing and happen by chance, there is a God, and it's Jesus.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Here's one reason I think your mind is closed. You say, "there is a God, and it's Jesus". Fine, how do you know that? Let's cut to the real answer to that question. It's that your parents raised you to believe that. You never gave two seconds thought to that question yourself. If you were born elsewhere in the world you would be worshiping a different god and just as sure you were right. That's why I think your mind and anyone who adopts their parents religion blindly, is closed
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit Yes, my parents do believe in God. But didn't raise me to. I made a choice based on the evidence. And I believe in the Christian God because the resurrection has too much evidence to be ignored. And nice Richard Dawkins argument, you're so creative. Also, do you believe Jesus exists?
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly You don't believe that the big bang or inflation occurred because of lack of evidence (you say) for which there is plenty, yet you believe in the resurrection because of something written in a 2000 year old book and call that evidence. Alien abductions are more believable than that. Jesus might be a historical figure but does not exist now (anywhere).
BTW, I used that "Richard Dawkins argument" 30 years ago before I ever heard of Dawkins. It's a compelling argument.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit But inflation has NO proof. I've even heard scientists say it. Matter can be created by God, that's not proof. And expansion can be explained by God, because if you think about it due to gravity the galaxies should be getting closer, not expanding,also, the cosmic background radiation can be explained by supernovas. I never said I totally reject it, just an atheistic version, I've seen too much evidence for God, and can't accept that we happened from odds and came from nothing
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Where to begin... Just about everything you said is just plain wrong. Please, please, please, learn some physics before you open your mouth. The only thing you said that was correct is that inflation has no proof. Actually, no physical theory has proof. Proof is a concept in mathematics. Yes, inflation has some open questions but it explains a great deal. There are fewer open questions every year. It doesn't need God shoved in as an explanation.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit Then explain how everything I said is wrong.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly 1) Galaxies are getting farther apart because space itself is expanding. The amount of matter in the universe, dark and normal, plus dark energy will determine whether the expansion slows and reverses or accelerates. It appears it will accelerate forever.
2) The CMBR most emphatically cannot be explained by supernova. It is black-body radiation created by the early universe before atoms formed.
3) Inflation says matter can be created from nothing. Watch the video I referred you to.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit But inflation has no evidence so that cannot be tolerated as an argument. Also, what about the resurrection of Jesus, tons of evidence for that. And is dark energy the same as dark matter?
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly I explained the evidence for inflation in an earlier posting. Dark energy is not the same as dark matter. Dark matter is believed to be an exotic form of matter that interacts with ordinary matter almost exclusively through gravitation. There are a couple of theories that may explain it. LHC results will help. Dark energy is more mysterious. It has antigravity properties and is not well understood but its effects have been observed. They are hot topics of research.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@Hm interesting, But what if dark matter is the effect of some other common element? Because we've never seen anything of dark matter, just effects.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly I'm not sure what you mean by a common element but it you mean something on the periodic table, it can't be that because every kind of ordinary matter we know of absorbs and emits light which dark matter doesn't do. There are 4 forces in nature; gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. Ordinary matter responds to at least two of these. Dark matter appears to respond to gravity only. Possible weakly to others. See /watch?v=EJtJ7Q0cV34 for an interesting video on dark matter.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit Hmm. Do you believe in the multiverse theory?
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly I don't know. It is highly speculative. It is based on string theory and string theory hints that it may be possible that there exists other universes in other dimensions. You're young enough to possibly see some interesting developments come of it. An interesting, yet speculative book on the subject is "The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind, a Stanford physicist.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit I would agree. I personally believe it's not true. As advanced as we are we would see some evidence of it already.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly One more thing I will say is that the multiverse theory, if it turns out to be correct, will solve a couple of very big problems in cosmology which I don't want to get in to because I'm not versed in the subject well enough to present a good argument about it. But you may want to pay attention to it because it surely is interesting. The PBS series, NOVA, had some good programs on it. Maybe you can view them on their website.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit Well, if the multiverse theory is correct, I don't see how we could ever prove it because we're in a separate universe, which is kind of like a separate reality, it's like using a rock in new york to gather evidence for a rock in California that we have no idea what it's like or what it consists of, so if they can't find evidence for it at this point in time of human history, I doubt they ever will. But then again, you never know.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly You would have to infer the presence of other universes from secondary effects. This is getting way beyond my comfort zone but my understanding is that in string theory (the basis for the most prominent multiverse theory), there are subtle effects with gravity across multiple dimensions into other universes that may be able to be detected. Also, there are some effects that may be able to be seen in particle accelerator experiments such as the LHC. Stay tuned - its very interesting.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit I intend to keep tabs on it. If there are other universes and we discover them, it may as well be the greatest discovery ever. But, there are a lot of things in the universe we don't know about, so it could be anything.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
Check out dark flow theory.
mtheoryrules 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
they may be able to create a universe with the large hadron collider.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife No. They say that to get more money.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
who, astrophysicists? lol..some exploit data and research to sell science books, but the information they use to write their books is from solid, genuine scientific research.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife You'd be surprised how much of science is bullcrap.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
you'd be surprised how much of it isn't bullshit..science is under so much scrutiny. therefore, a lot of it would be plucked out and labeled bullshit by many willing scientists looking to falsify scientific theories. there's a reason why a lot of established theories are widely accepted..because the rest of the scientific community cannot find major flaws. claims that stand even under the vigourous scrutiny of the scientific process, are very likely factual and genuine.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife Inflation for example. No evidence. Many believe it. Hauls in the money. I'm not saying all science is, I like to study it myself first.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
no evidence for inflation?...a purely ignorant statement
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife Anyone I've talked to agrees with it. Even Michio Kaku! Give me one bit of evidence.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
well, wait a minute here..something needs to be clarified..there isn't any empirical evidence of inflation, but there is indirect, circumstancial evidence..inflation is the best and simplest explanation we have, and it has yet to be falsified..there is very good reason to adhere to it. there are many reasons to expect that it occured.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife That's most of science for you... And there's historical evidence for Jesus. So, there is no evidence to suggest it actually occured.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
are u fucking crazy?..that's most science?..science is the most elite method of finding truth..how can u sit there and not respect it?..look how much it has figured out about how things work and how nature works...it's got a great track record of figuring things out. nothing else even comes close to it, yet u sit there and undermine it, like it's this vague method of finding truth..pathetic, fucking pathetic.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
and ok, there's historical evidence of jesus..jesus the man existed..so what?..where's the evidence that he was divine?..where's the evidence that he actually performed magic?..where's the evidence that he was the son of god?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I can send you a link... But you'll probably deny the evidence..
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
we'll trade links..send me your link..i'll send u this link..
(fast foward to 1:00)
/watch?v=HrSms6nAPgU
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
why are u worried about evidence anyway?..u believe that jesus was the son of a magical deity..why should evidence have any bearing on your beliefs?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly
dark aged superstitious peasants witnessed miracles 2 thousand years ago?..is that your evidence that he was divine?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Id highly suggest you dont study the sciences, your brain may be to badly damaged by bronze age dogma to get a grasp. My advice is to stick with creationism and keep promoting it! Keep up with the quote mining and the debunked arguments, keep up with the talk of salvation and the end times, it only serves the causes of reason and science better, because most people simply arent as stupid as you are. Eventually your little fringe cult will recede into nothing as people stop listening
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 You are such an idiot. I don't believe in the big bang because of my faith in Jesus. It's because of lack of evidence! I believe in good science. Like, evolution. Not crap like this. I suggest you and your little atheist cult shut up, I'm sick of you guys being prejudice against other's beliefs.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly lack of evidence for the accepted model of the universe? You really are stupid.
But that aside, believing in Jesus already puts you in the dunce category anyway, so whatever you say beyond that can be considered bullshit by definition.
Ha, you actually think a guy rose from the dead and turned water into wine? And the best you can do to prove this is point to some 1st century texts written by people who thought evil spirits roamed the desert? YOU ARE AN IDIOT, a gullible fool.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 Wait. You are so prejudice. Judging somebody for their beliefs. I'm not going to show you evidence, because all atheists deny it. You're no better then a racist. And there is evidence for it, I just don't see enough. If there were more I'd accept it. And the Bible actually is enough evidence. It's historically accurate. Now go be racist elsewhere. Your soul is forever condemed...
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly "Judging somebody for their beliefs"
Yes, thats exactly what im doing, you believe stupid things for stupid reasons and im calling you on it. If you cant take it then fuck off. Your master Jesus told his followers to expect to be mocked for what they believe, because their beliefs to many people will sound stupid. So get over it. You're an unthinking faith head, evidence is meaningless to losers like you because you have already decided what is true beforehand. Nice scare tactic btw
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 And I don't believe in Christ for stupid reasons. I believe in Him from what has happened to me. I'd be a huge idiot to not believe. And you atheists are such hypocrites. You guys bitch about getting judged by Christians. Look at what you're doing!
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly were doing scientific progress. okay, you can read your 2000 year old bronze age book of fairy tales, hate, and hypocrisy while i read about quantum mechanics.
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Lol! You've never even read the Bible! And I believe everything science says.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly i responded to the wrong person sry :P
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Thought so. Lol.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly actually a study shows atheists have read the bible and they tested them and Christians and Christians had lost. it was interesting. although i do think your comment is not a lie in any way but i believe it is a contradiction. i have seen many scientific errors and impossibility's in many of the story's. im not sure how you agree with science but at the same time believe in a book that is in accurate. usually some one is one or the other but not in this case.
muaythaijunky 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 I just don't want to argue. Just, why are you judging a 16 year old you've never met? You know you're proving Jesus all the more by doing this.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Mate, I dont care whether you understand why i'm attacking you or not. I couldnt give a shit. I'm telling you what you are, that's all.
Just listen to yourself, "you're proving Jesus all the more by doing this", Its actually quite sad that you have been reduced to such a level. You obviously dont know or understand the concept of proof. And you wonder why christians like yourself are a laughing stock all over the internet? Get used to being ridiculed kid, its the 21st century.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 Dude. Leave me the fuck alone. People like you get your asses knocked out where I'm from. So quit judging. And we get judged because you atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 9339040204048393993923030593939 chance of happening.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFyrfly "...atheists are idiots. You guys believe in something that has a 1 in 8394949038578939593993 times 9339040204048393993923030593939 chance of happening."
So you admit it is possible? So in other words, given enough time, it is a guaranteed occurrence, however unlikely. Thank you, you just proved the atheists' point, as prior to the universe, there was all the time there could be to constitute a sufficient fluctuation to make this universe!
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly hey bud. Just thought I’d let you know that the odds of you being right (assuming any single religion is true, as non could be) are less than 0.000001%.. and thats being generous.
NightHawkBomber001 10 months ago
@spacecowboy95 And I'm stupid? You're judging somebody you've never met! At least I know how to use apostrophes!
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 Newton believes in Jesus, is he an idiot?
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Newton also believed in Alchemy, does this mean that alchemy is true? Clearly its possible to do real science while holding crackpot beliefs.
See? Another stupid argument from an intellectual midget. This is too easy.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFyrfly There are many scientific, peer reviewed papers on inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. There are also many YouTube videos, some of which are very good, that help explain these in layman's terms. If you're interested, do a YouTube (or a google) search.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
@TheQRabbit I meant to say accept, not except, my bad sir.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
What in the world does Big Bang cosmology have to do with atheism? Big Bang implies the universe had a beginning, isn't that what you low IQ religious nutjobs want?
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
@ClamCrunchy i think they are impliying that evolution is a part of the big bang. which it is. and that all athiest belive in evolution and are calling people crackpots who dont belive in it. but whatever i try not to worry about it.
Squweesh 1 year ago
@ClamCrunchy Not to mention that the person who first developed the theory was a Christian (he was a Belgian Catholic Priest and Mathematician).
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
@ClamCrunchy I...Couldn't agree more... I may not believe in the big bang, but not because of my belief in God, I'd like more evidence. Or, maybe I haven't seen it all. But I do hate how people say the big bang is atheistic, especially when it's in the Bible.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
I don't even understand why what he said was bad. If you don't believe that the universe is expanding outwards from a central point, you ARE a crackpot. It's been well documented.
durge666 1 year ago
@durge666 the unviverse expanding only says there was an begging not that all matter was held in a small dot and blew up.
Squweesh 1 year ago
This is called quotemining. Taking quotes out of context is fallacious reasoning. Like much associated with Kirk Cameron, this is not scientific.
SciMethod 1 year ago
@SciMethod What is the full quote then?
BROWNVBOARD 1 year ago
DANGER! THIS CHANNEL CONTAINS CREATIONIST LEVELS OF STUPIDITY. THIS LEVEL OF STUPIDITY IS TOXIC TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE. DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL UNLESS YOU HAVE A VERY THICK SKULL.
DraconianKindness 1 year ago
@DraconianKindness Okay, I may not be a creationist, I believe in everything science. And I'm Christian. But, if they want to believe this let them. You have to respect other people's beliefs. Don't call their beliefs stupid, that's just ignorant. They actually have some nice points that atheists, and even myself sometimes ignore.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@DraconianKindness, Why do Atheists like yourself feel the need to hack youtube and give themselves so many thumbs? Is it some insecurity issue or just plain dishonesty?
zigzagzoo12 1 year ago
@zigzagzoo12 You don't understand networking at all do you? To "hack youtube" you need to gain access to their servers, good luck with that.
Its called people agree with him.
mit871chell 1 year ago
@mit871chell, hacking doesn't necessarily have to do with networking--please look up the word in the dictionary.
zigzagzoo12 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@zigzagzoo12 I'm using the proper vernacular in this case.
mit871chell 1 year ago
@DraconianKindness : ... or if you see the humor in this kind of stupidity. Ray Comfort is such a moron his only way to defend his views is by repeating the same over-rehearded lines again and again, which is especially obvious when people don't respond to his questions the way he expects them to since he's barely able to come up with ANYTHING original at all. I just love to see his stupid *** get pwned by anyone from a simpleminded mormon or a common Jew to a neonazi. How does he do it?! ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
no energy can be created or destroyed only changed. the big bang if it happed was not the beginning. the idea of a beginning is STUPID! the big bang if it happened was only a big change, no more no less. the real crackpot is someone who says that nothing can become something. LOL...
jackstrassbach 1 year ago
Guth has contributed more to humankind's understanding of the universe than all the bible-thumpers who ever lived.
HPoelzig 1 year ago
Because calling crackpots crackpots does make creation true.
chrisxy123 1 year ago
Alan Guth has given more to mankind than any religious leader alive today.
djgenfish 1 year ago
@djgenfish I will "solidly" second that motion. Guth's leap of imagination might go down as one of the most important in the history of science. Cool guy too. His lectures are accessible and delivered with very little sense of his own importance; a sharp contrast, in fact, with many religious leaders.
chaosIsTheOnlyPower 1 year ago
@chaosIsTheOnlyPower I couldn't agree more!
djgenfish 1 year ago
how is that pulling the plug?
im confused
Colepotera 1 year ago
0:24 - 0:37
Biggest. Shit/fart. EVER.
stevieonuska 1 year ago
What does Crack Pot mean?
Anyone?
lThellRockl 1 year ago
@lThellRockl
a crack addicted lesbian?
klootzakisme 1 year ago
@lThellRockl
I think it might be a Pot for cooking Crack.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Physicists and cosmologists DO actually say this: That the universe came from nothing.
BUT, they don't mean "nothing" in the colloquial sense. They actually mean vacuum energy; zero-point energy; dark energy; the cosmological constant-- These are all different terms for the exact same thing-- namely, the energy in "empty" space.
This energy is what makes up over 80 % of the universe's total energy-- which is 0 incidentally; the reason it could come from "nothing" in the first place
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
@Wittgensteinism
Thank you, these idiots at way of the master need to read some of these comments. I find it hard to beleive that no one has corrected them to their face on this subject
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism Me thinks you missunderstand the Big Bang. It seems that you imply that there was space before the big bang which is contradictory to the theory itself which proposes that space-time 'expanded' into being from what we could think of as a single 'point' or coordinate. Also Dark Energy or Dark Matter is not the same as zero-point energy.
TylerBoBylerFyler 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler LMAO!! wow. First, dark matter and dark energy are two COMPLETELY different things. And YES, dark ENERGY IS zero-point energy. It is the energy in "empty" space, which because of this energy, isnt actually "empty" at all. Second, the conventional Big Bang theory says NOTHING about whether the was any space or time outside of the singularity. It, like evolution, only deals with the moment of exponential expansion after the initial fact of the singularity
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler Virtual particles in the quantum foam (the spacetime outside of the singularity) created fluctuations of Planck time and sizes. These quantum foam fluctuations give suffient explanations for the origin of the singularity. All energy is still conserved since energy is converted from dark energy into visible energy; the energy remnants of the Big Bang. Besides, did i ever imply spacetime outside the singularity before now? NO
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler Me thinks you're too arrogant with your ignorance
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism Ok so i'm going to have to adress your pointes here: 1. First you imply the I said that dark energy and dark matter are the same things. I did not say that. Granted I have never heard of "Dark energy" I WOULD find it a resonable the make the assumption that they were since matter and energy are different words for the same thing under different circumstances. 2. As I have heard it told the big bang was the origin of space-time but to your credit I cannot find any support for it
TylerBoBylerFyler 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism ... 3. Everything else you said didn't really deal with anything I said before so perhaps you should have payed closer attention to what I had actually written. Now returning from my points to analyze what you have written: I can find no source to varify your claim that dark energy and dark matter are any more different than visible matter or energy (though this may not have been your claim at all, forgive me but I can't quite tell from your wording) yet I can find two sources..
TylerBoBylerFyler 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism ... That condradict such a claim. Secondly I would just like to ask you if you have a source for this claim that "energy is converted from dark energy into visible energy" because I could not find any and I am curious as to exactly how this happens and if/when visible energy is converted back. Lastly I would just like to point out how much of a dick thing it is to 'lmao' at what is not a mistake but a very simple, harmless case of misinformation. Don't be such a bitch.
TylerBoBylerFyler 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler ok good response. You have a Wittgensteinian way of writing that i like; very logical and numerically ordered, so i'll do my best to reply likewise. 1. Dark matter is simply a type of matter that is only detectable through indirect observation i.e. it's gravitational affect on galaxies. It is called dark MATTER because it has mass, thus also having a gravitational affect that we DO detect..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler .. By contrast, dark ENERGY is the energy in a vacuum. Lawrence Krauss is credited with calculating/proving that the universe's rate of expansion is actually INCREASING rather than decreasing. The culprit? Energy; Dark energy/Vacuum energy/zero-point energy/the cosmological constant. This is the energy literally permeates the fabric of space-time so that there is no "true-vacuum"..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler 2. Cosmologists now agree that there was no singularity at present at the big bang, thus no need for a "beginning" of space-time. Rather, there was a quantum foam of vitual particle popping in and out of existence. 3. The total energy of the universe is thought to be zero, which is how energy is still conserved by the big bang; it was merely the conversion of energy into another form. The more dark energy, the less visible energy and vise versa...
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler 3. Dark energy accounts for 74% of the universe's total mass-energy, dark matter accounts for 22% and the remaining 4% is everything else in the universe that we can observe; stars, stellar gas clouds, planets, people etc. You're right that dark energy doesn't convert into visible energy. I shouldn't have given that impression. In fact, dark energy could turn out to be simply us not entirely understanding gravity once again..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@TylerBoBylerFyler We and the rest of the visible universe that resulted from the big bang, constitute a 4% bit of pollution in comparison to the rest of the invisible "dark" universe. The big bang is not that mysterious. It's simply the result of quantum foam fluctuations. The absolute "nothing" of space before the big bang was simply too unstable and resulting in a fluctuation that produces a universe of relatively insignificant stuff.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
There is no god, get over it
religion is a scourge of the humanity, it's a tool of mob control, nothing more.
QueueBionique 2 years ago
@ QueueBionique. Validate your 'there is no god' scientifically. If you can, you're smarter than Richard Dawkins. If you cannot, your condescending slant is unwarranted.
boledle 2 years ago
@boledle: The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those making the big assumptions. I just state the obvious, there is no god, if you believe in god(s) then you show me proof.
Before I am ready to accept your theory, you better have a rather compelling amount of evidence to submit, not just the circumstantial evidence, but verifiable evidence.
I don't believe in fairy stories nor follow blindly the tools of mob control laid out by religious zealots.
QueueBionique 2 years ago
There's a book called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in painful detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes in the 20th century alone. More than all religious wars in all centuries combined. Name 5 protestant Christian countries that have rampant poverty, illiteracy & human rights abuses. Lenin, "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." Name 5 Buddhist, or 5 Hindu countries, or 5 Muslim, or 5 atheist countries that do NOT have the same.
boledle 2 years ago
So for that we are going to close down on all the atrocities committed under the christian domination and forget how the Holy siege was a direct actor in the Vietnam war? Or how it wiped hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years, wiping WHOLE civilizations and always coming back like a cancer to devour at the human spirit.
Religion, any and all religion are a scourge that humanity MUST at all cost get rid of. No more crutches, no more tools of mass control...
QueueBionique 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ queue. Nope, we're not going to do anything. Wouldn't change anything. I was merely pointing out statistical facts and general trends over long periods of time. All good scientists appreciate that sort of thing. Sure religion has been misused, as everything else has. That's evil in people, evil that atheism has a tough time explaining.
boledle 2 years ago
Atheism doesn't have anything to be misused. If any atrocities have been committed under "atheist" regimes, it is not the lack of theism that is the problem, but the evil in the people behind the regime.
I think religion has a tougher time explaining because their holy books are filled with evil.
Pandamonk69 2 years ago
@Pandamonk69 Science doesn't know how to describe it which is why the mathematical concept of a 'singularity' is used. I've heard many descrips of what that is & not a single concrete description of what caused the expansion or how. I don't attack science for simply having unknowns, nor do I just throw God into them. But this, & more importantly, origin of life & Darwinism is being taught in schools as Fact and Truth so there is *plenty of burden of proof on science's shoulders as well.>> II
boledle 2 years ago
It's not a mathematical but a gravitational singularity. The expansion was caused by the immense energy contained in the singularity.
There certainly is a burden of proof, and they are providing it. The point of science in schools is to teach the most up-to-date, accurate and evidenced science. This is why evolution and big bang theories are taught and abiogenesis isn't yet (as far as I know).
Pandamonk69 2 years ago
Plenty of burden of proof on science? All the burden of proof is on science. It's just that for just about any theory you can name, science meets that burden of proof.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
Part II. Focusing on what's not the point changes nothing. You've not put a dent in a single argument I've made in all the threads here. In the Material world, (that science can't account for), you have: physical laws, gravity, matter, chaos & fractiles, energy, light, forces, rocks, water, snowflakes, weather, etc. On the INFO side you have: symbols, copies, purpose, competition, intent, truth, falsehood, judgment, codes replication, language, messages, rules/breaking rules > III
boledle 2 years ago
I disagree.
Science can and does account for the material world.
Inorganic silicate crystals (those found in clay) can replicate.
If by information you are referring to DNA; it evolved from the simpler RNA, which formed through the polymerization of nucleotides.
Pandamonk69 2 years ago
Part III expectations, instructions, meaning. Now, If you were to travel to another planet, everything you find there would be just Material. Material things don't replicate, or make copies of themselves or anything else. Rocks & snowflakes & sand dunes exhibit no purpose. They change but they don't evolve. They obey laws of physics & nothing more. There is no meaning, symbols, instructions, or info. No Right or Wrong, just Is. So ... where did "information" come from?
boledle 2 years ago
The information that you are talking about (which I think are better classified as ideas or conceptual things) are all things that can only be appreciated by a consciousness or mind, which you know, being as you drew that distinction. So, if we find out where the mind comes from, we can find out where the rest of it comes from. Where does the mind come from? There are so many sources on possible abiogenesis scenarios and the development of the brain I wouldn't know where to start.
LanceDirk 2 years ago