I still don't get what the difference a hypothesis and theory is... Without googling it. Boy I am not good at that science stuff :/ But I do know that a theory is more... precise per se.
i have just thought of 7 ways, to prove the sun will "raise" tomorrow, and it dosnt rise, its a rotation efect, so, you should be really stupid, ill tell you that.
@WeskerPG "It doesn't rise" - in the Earth's frame of reference it does rise. Please see my Relativity series and then explain my stupidity. Also, please present your best proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
the sun its not going to die, tomorrow (i wont explain this, theres not enought space...)
our planet wont stop rotating, in the next 24 hours, and theres no cosmologic threat, asteroids etc(cant explain it, not enought space)
so if the sun wont die tomorrow, and theres nothing that can avoid the earth from doing hes rotation, that we know in time its a 24 hr cicle, therefor tomorrow the sun will "raise", but i rather prefer to know that the sun will be seen, he never moved...
like i said the simple answer its that the poles are still here, and cant just vanish, the elipse where the earth gravitates its still here, and since gravity still exist, the elipse still exist and theres no cosmologic threat outside the earth that we know about and can move the earth outside hes gravitatory elipse, theres nothing that can stop the earth spinning, making this a 24 hrs cicle based in our 12 months gravitation elipse, dont know the words on english, but its not hard..
@WeskerPG It is only a fact when it is observed to happen. Before that it's a prediction based on a theory. Now it's an incredibly solid theory, I grant you. But you cannot "prove" that the sun will rise. You can only say it's consistent with everything we know about physics. In fact the way physics advances is when firmly held assumptions fail to predict experiment.
@ozmoroid By your reasoning before about 1900 I could have "proven" that all clocks run at the same rate (and I'd be wrong - so obviously that wasn't a proof). That is what all observation and theory up to that time said was the case. I could have "proven" that an electron cannot pass through two separate slits simultaneously (and I'd be wrong again). And on and on. I am not going to bet money that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but I cannot "prove" it. Math has proof; physics does not.
i doubt i can make you think what you belief is, it seems that even if i prove it, over and over again, you just refute any single argument, this isnt a theory in anyway, its a fact that the sun will "raise" tomorrow, in fact i can prove right now 06/11/2011 that the sun will raise everyday from tomorrow, to 50 years beggening tomorrow, since theres nothing near the earth, in this lapse of 50 years i will probably be death by then, but the future generations cant see how dumb you are
@WeskerPG: The point is that you didn't get his point, and you maybe never will. He is as certain as you (and me) are that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet, you can't prove it before tomorrow.
To keep it scientific: There might be things we haven't thought about or come across in nature that'll prevent the sun from rising tomorrow. We - as a species - can do mistakes, only being fed by our (still) narrow minds.
Talk more straightly: What if a thermonuclear war rips the planet tonight?
arguing with a person that cant understand, beyond hes beliefs its pointless, i rather teach my cat to speak, and i know thats imposible, but hey ill give it a shoot, it has more sence than you learning or thinking for a change.
making your concept, not a theory or proof, you made an assuption, that it wasnt based on facts, im an atheist and i do know the facts to tell you that tomorrow the sun will raise, its not an asumption or an hipothesys, its an event that we have study for ages, and that we know why, how and when its going to happend, we know so much about that that theres information on where and when in wich cities, or parts it will show at what hour, again im proving this its a fact, not a theory
You see, I do agree with the big bang theory. The only part I don't agree on, is that it happened by "chance". That's extremely sketchy. I don't dislike science. I just dislike how atheists put Christians down. Of course, we can force our beliefs upon anyone, so why can't we just live in peace along side one another? That's all I've wanted.
@XxAdamJxX People deserve respect, but ideas do not. I can live quite peacefully with Christians, Muslims, Bigfoot enthusiasts and UFO abduction fans. But, orthodox Christianity clearly holds that I will burn in Hell for all eternity and actually deserve to. Many Christians feel like they need to tell me this ("witness/preach"). That's kinda a put down, no? This has been going on for 2,000 years and now some of us pushing back.
@ozmoroid Sorry I meant to say that we "can't" force people to believe. But Christians really shouldn't be terrorizing others about deserving to burn in hell. I mean, whenever a city didn't want to listen to Yahushua(Jesus) he'd just turn around and let those people be. I wish it were still that way now. But instead we have people talking so much about how unbelievers deserve to burn. We should really approach everyone with love. Anyway, God bless you <3 I hope that doesn't anger you :l
@XxAdamJxX No anger on my part at all. I am a peaceful, live and let live type of guy. I know that more civilized Christians emphasize the loving aspects of their religion, but the Bible is very clear about the burn in Hell stuff. For example, let me ask you a question. My father died a few years ago. He was not a Christian (indeed, not religious in any way). Is he in Heaven or Hell right now, according to your beliefs?
@ozmoroid You know, that is something I also think about. Because it is said that Yahushua cried out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do!". So really, I wouldn't know what happens after death. Another thing that gets me, is how many people who do not believe in God or just don't really follow their religion, have seen part of the afterlife and described it as pure love. So really we don't know what the truth is :l But according to what Jesus taught before he was crucified (cont.)
@ozmoroid your father would be there. It hurts me to say that cause I wouldn't like to imagine such a thing for anyone. Not even the most evil person that would seem to deserve such punishment. However, I wish the best for your father brother <3
@ozmoroid But what I personally believe, is that all punishment should only be reserved for Satan and his angels for leading people astray. If they were the cause of sin, then they should rightfully deserve the punishment. Unfortunately I do not know God's thoughts or what Justice really is. Only he does. It bothers me to talk about hell :l
@XxAdamJxX Ozmoroid is too decent a person to tell you to take god, jesus, satan, hell, and shove them squarely up your ignorant ass. But I'm not. So take god, jesus, satan, hell, and shove them squarely up your ignorant ass.
@fdasherv And Im ignorant? You're the one who accepts bs and eats it all up like a kid in a candy store. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to back up evolution. The whole thing is FLAWED. Just a bunch of ideas that spewed out of a man's brain to try and prove that there is no God. I'll tell you something though. If ANYONE were to try and prove evolution to be true, they'd only find that there was after all a creator. To think otherwise is foolish. We don't even come close to knowing EVERYTHING.
@XxAdamJxX No proof? Google talkorigins, there's enough proof there to keep you reading for a few hours.
Darwin believed in god, I highly doubt he was trying to "prove that there is no God"
Even if evolution were proven false, it would not bring you any closer to proving that god did it. You need to provide positive evidence for such a claim, not just say "well have you got a better idea?"
Of course we don't know everything, that's why we have science, to try to find out
@cm3007235 Seriously? Where is the evidence? I need more than just words written on paper to support the claims. I mean, I can rant on about something scientific too, but I need to see the proof. I have nothing against science. But saying that there is no God is something completely foolish. Like I said, we don't know everything.
@XxAdamJxX Saying that there is no god is completely equivalant to saying there are no unicorns, or fairies, or magic toadstools. There is no evidence for any of them so they are all on equal footing.
As for evidence for evolution- go read a book, or a website or whatever. If you don't trust them, go spend your life investigating it yourself. But you haven't got the time presumably, so maybe the 100s of scientists who do spend their life investigating should be trusted?
@cm3007235 Not at all. God is a being that created everything. Yes, a being because he could very well be the energy that started off everything in the first place. Seriously, there's no legit evidence. Some scientists stumble in debates with creationists when it comes to this. There has never been evolution, just extinctions of different species which were created. Natural selection displays that clearly.
@XxAdamJxX In a blackhole time comes to a dead stop. And people like to think that everything exists because of a cause. You know, the ole' "cause and effect" theory. But here's a big problem with having a cause (by anything, including your god) of the universe: When the universe was just a singularity, time did not exist. The universe could not have had a cause because there was no time for the cause to exist in. Think about that last sentence.
@cm3007235 If we are made of light at our smallest level, where does that light go? It doesn't just die off. It cannot decay, because it is not matter. Without light/energy, there is no matter. Life continues on and on. For all of eternity. I don't just stop with what my mind takes in, I continue asking questions. That's where logic comes in. I begin wondering about everything. There most definitely is a God and an afterlife. It doesn't end here.
@cm3007235 Funny. You can trust guys when it comes to something of your convenience but you can trust a book which accurately describes our past? Even at that, it describes the miracles which Jesus performed. And you can't trust that. So really all you're doing is relying on faith with your science, just as I am with my God.
@XxAdamJxX No, i'm trusting scientists because they have proven themselves reliable again and again and again. All technology came from science. Medicine. Infastructure. Physics. They base their findings on evidence and experiments which can be re-produced by anyone once they are told how. Scientific explanations make logical sense.
Religion however is based on what bronze age peasents wrote down on paper, with nothing to explain why they would be trustworthy.
@hasenj logical deductions are only as good as the axioms they are built on. The history of science has seen many "illogical" concepts experimentally established as true, requiring us to go back and change our foundational axioms. In that sense logic takes a back seat to experiment. Indeed, scientific progress is usually the result of logical deductions from current theories being shown wrong experimentally.
@ozmoroid logic in science can never take a back seat. When prior assumptions are shown to be wrong by experiment, this is logic in action. If it wasn't for logic, how would we decide that our previous assumptions were wrong? If we have a premise A and conclusion B, and experiment shows B to be false, it is logic that's compelling us to conclude that A must be wrong.
@hasenj True, but my point is that the experimental result is "in the driver's seat" in this process. Logicians argued for centuries that heavy object fall faster than light objects. It took Galileo's experiment to correct this fallacy. Starting from false premises, no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions. Science works precisely because experiment is the ultimate determiner of "truth."
@ozmoroid I know exactly what you mean, but you're wording it the wrong way, and this was my point to begin with. You still shouldn't say that logic takes a back seat. Also you're still wrong on "no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions". All conclusions in physics rely on math, and math is nothing but logic.
@hasenj Please read the entire sentence. STARTING FROM FALSE PREMISES, no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions. Are you seriously disputing this?
@MorganMarvinson #1 - I don't claim to know that life came from non-life. I would say that only when we can demonstrate abiogenesis experimentally can we really claim it as a fact. #2 - there is quite a bit of research on abiogenesis that has shown the plausibility of many of the chemical reaction required for biological molecules to develop from simpler precursors.
@ozmoroid "... only when we can demonstrate abiogenesis experimentally can we really claim it as a fact." I wish others would be as careful about this, which is why your #2 is so surprising. It has only been with the coaxing of the experimenters that the chemical reactions have made anything that doesn't disassociate as easily as it associate--and of course even coming up with an amino acid is a far cry from producing an organism that has a means of locomotion and DNA code for reproduction.
@MorganMarvinson Certainly. From the point of view of someone on Earth, the Sun rises. If you take a time-lapse video of a "sunrise" you will see the sun "rising." All that means is that the Sun's distance from the horizon increases with time.
@ozmoroid POV answers it, and I have no difficulty with this description. It is just that Bible writers are called ignorant for this same description.
I find it interesting that all atheists accept that matter must have started at some point, but none of them have an explanation for how it all began. No one has an answer for this question. Just an observation...
@Granpire The could just say "Goddidit!" That would explain everything. ;-) You are correct. Science does not currently know everything there is to know. There are several speculative theories about the origin of the Big Bang, and each of those is an "explanation for how it all began." Until one of those theories makes a testable prediction, however, they will remain speculative. I find it interesting that religion has contributed basically zilch to our understanding of nature.
Science nor Atheists "claim" to know everything, the starting point of matter included. That being as it may doesn't make Christianity (or any other religion) more valid. That's an illogical path to follow.
@Granpire you're an idiot and you haven't listened to a word this video stated. Nobody knows how matter came into existence, theists only CLAIM they know. The origins of matter, space and time are currently UNKNOWABLE. However, I can make a scientific observation and claim that you're an ass and will still be an ass tomorrow.
but we go one step further when it comes to finding truth, we say "WE DON'T FU**ING KNOW YET"
so we are open to suggestions and still try to find the answer, unlike delusional idiots who say "well it was my imaginary friend, now i can die in piece and get my eternal orgasm"
@Granpire I'm an atheist and I don't accept that matter must have started at some point. Matter MIGHT have started at some point, but it isn't necessary that it ever came into existence from nothing. That affirmative claim is:
a) Unsubstantiated
b) Contrary to established laws of physics (particularly conservation of mass/energy)
c) Not required to explain the history of the universe with our current understanding of space-time.
I'll give you point (a), because we have no evidence of what came *before* the Big Bang. Point (b), however, is incorrect -- it is possible that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum; this does not conflict with theory. And as to point (c), while you're correct that the claim is not necessary, it is *sufficient* as an explanation, absent evidence beyond what we now know. Ultimately, you may turn out to be right; no one can say at this point.
I understand precisely what you're claiming. I'm just pointing out that your point (b) is incorrect. I'll leave you to wrestle with the logical conundrum that you don't accept that matter must have started at some point while at the same time avoiding the claim that it has always existed.
@Granpire In science, it's acceptable to say "I don't know" about some phenomenon, rather than making up some ad hoc answer, all for the sake of having an answer.
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant of ignorance.
Why do christian simpletons always want 100% proof that no god exist from us Atheists but do not require any proof at all for their god to be real? The bible tells me so. This is there proof. Fucking retarded.
I quit seeing the video at 1:00, when you say it's illogical that velocity and gravity makes time slow...
Sorry, buddy, saying that is illogical means someone don't know what is neither of then. Don't know what is velocity, what is gravity, and don't even know what is logical. Cause the effect of relativity is very logical.
If you wanted to say its amazing, I would agree. But it's not illogical. Relativity does not contradictate reality.
@bragdale Logic is not an objective fact of the cosmos. The point is that we can look at something and it can contradict what we would call logical, in some way, but that doesn't mean that the thing does not represent reality.
No, it cannot. It can contradict an impression. It can contradict a first impression based on a first observation. Then, if SEEMS to contradicts logic, it only means that you don't comprehend the phenomenon correctly.
I'll agree that there is some conflating of the terms "illogical" and "counterintuitive" here. But the logic of relativity comes only *after* the realization that the speed of light is a finite constant for all observers. Absent that rather recent fact, it is certainly counterintuitive (to some, "illogical") that how fast your car is moving changes how fast your wristwatch ticks, or means that your watch ticks faster on the 10th floor than it does at ground level.
The sun never rises, actually. Also, it's not a theory, it's a prediction, a.k.a. hypothesis. A theory explains the facts. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not an explanation. :)
I enjoy your calm toned response. It was clear, direct, and easy to follow. it did not involve bashing any person or group of people, just a mere train of logic.
The age of the universe is approx. 12 billions years, right?? And with that speed you gave me, the size of the universe is small as hell up until now...LOL How can it contains billions of galaxies???
@KatiushaVN4 The best estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 billion years based on OBSERVATIONS. I teach astronomy and you are asking questions that I would answer after two months of background and mathematics in my course. But you want me to respond on a youtube comment so you can understand? How should I do that. You can read about the science yourself, how these things are arrived at and what the evidence is (check Wikipedia). Your estimate is incorrect on size with these numbers.
Well, you know the speed of the expansion of the Big Bang and just do the math, according to the age of the universe, you could tell how big the universe is, right??
But again, to me, that speed was/is too slow to in order to make the universe this big. For example, to go across our galaxy, you gotta spend 100K years at the speed of light. But the universe has billions of galaxy like that. So big, right?? How is that speed (73.5 Km/s) able to hold such an immense space? Be Logical
@KatiushaVN4 the original figure I gave you is the rate of expansion 75.5 km/s PER Mega Parsec. It is NOT linear, the further a thing is away from us the faster it is moving and the rate of expansion appears to be increasing. The observable universe is 13.75 billion light years in all directions from the earth - BUT the size of the universe is bigger than that, what we can actually SEE and how big it is are different things. It is a complex subject and idea - BASED ON EVIDENCE!
Hah, now you say the age of the universe is 13.7 billion LIGHT YEARS. Nice try!
Then according to you, that also makes the planet earth 4.5 billions LIGHT YEARS of age, too. Hahaha
I know my idea is pretty hard to answer because it's logically solid . But if you wanna use my idea to ask other people, please make sure that you're authorized by me first.
@KatiushaVN4 Holy cow! Are you SERIOUS??? A light year is a measure of distance AND it can be used to measure time. This is a fairly simple concept, you seen the speed of light is a constant, "c" (as in E=MC^2), as such the distance light travels in a year (~6 trillion miles), takes ONE YEAR (a unit of time), so I can talk about a light YEAR as distance or time, based on context. If you can't fathom that, you are WAY out of your league in trying to understand the idea of the big bang.
Look, if you now say the age of the universe is 13.7 billions light years, then when the universe became 9.2 billion light years old, so that time the earth was born. Right? Because Time and Space all travel the same. Imagine in your head a circle (universe) its centre (Big Bang) its radius 9.2 cm (9.2 billion light years), the earth must have been born right on the edge of the circle (Time and Space are the same). Are you with me??
@KatiushaVN4 I understand what you are saying. But you do NOT understand the cosmology involved! The big bang was not an explosion IN space, it was the creation of matter AND space, there is no such thing as a "edge" like you are saying. And the earth was not created "on" any edge. There is no "middle" in the universe. Here is a decent youtube video that explains the details /watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo
On that note, I think it's perfectly reasonable for personal beliefs to 'fill in the blanks' of the big bang for themselves. Until researchers actually do discover what caused the universe to come into existence in the first place, go nuts!
@TuahShinguru Relinquish supernatural belief! it leads to dangerous beliefs that life now doesn't matter and the afterlife does! Leading to things like 9/11. denouncement of science and prayer-instead-of-medicine death, and discrimination of other faiths! Its badddd!
@TuahShinguru I think physics explains clearly that physical things can affect physical things. I don't think anything nonphysical is warranted. And if one really understands science, they don't make up stuff, they instead look for answers
thats rediculouse.the sun always rises and thats 100% fact.to say something cant be proven is also rediculous.an example would be its 100% proven that there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer.Although when it comes to 2nd hand smoke I have a problem with that connection
@ranchai100 The sun has always risen, but I've never seen a "proof" that it will rise tomorrow. If you have a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it. Smoking causes a statistically significant increase in lung cancer rates, but it does not cause cancer 100% of the time. There have been heavy smokers who lived to be 100 and never got cancer. Each of those people is a counter-example to your claim. Things can be proven in mathematics, but not in science.
@ozmoroid actually you have a point about smoking and I stand corrected.when you say though youve never seen proof for the sun rising tomorrow are you talking about it not rising due to unforseen circumstance or natural disaster?
@ranchai100 Any "proof" that the sun will rise tomorrow would be interesting. Likewise, any "proof" that gravity will exist tomorrow would be of interest. Indeed, any proof of any scientific statement.
If you deny objective consistency. your insane. There isnt "proof" by your definition of anything. I could be speaking one day and suddenly grow 38 feet then shrink to an ion's size. Just because something CAN happen, doesnt mean it has any relevance on what WILL happen.
If gravity has been in effect since the beginning of time (presumably) then it is expected that it will be in effect tomorrow. Similar to the sun rising, similar to the human need for oxygen.
@Oldspiceguyshorse Pure 100% "proof" exists in mathematics. There is no such proof in physics. The problem is that many of the things we now accept as true were once considered "obviously" ridiculous. Time dilation? Wave-particle duality? Black holes? Obviously I live as if I'm 100% certain the sun will come up tomorrow. But it is a misuse of the term to call that massively reasonable *assumption* proof. If something can happen then obviously there cannot be any proof that it cannot happen.
You got me man. Your so good. Damn, i feel stupid now.
Proof that something cannot happen? That sounds a lot like proving a negative.Similar to "theres no proof against a giant flying invisible intangible unicorn sitting on my lap, its a viable option"
^see how silly that is?
Please wake up and realize that your wrong, and continuing this argument is putting you in a really negative light.
@Oldspiceguyshorse (Appeal to ridicule fail.) No, I'm not wrong. In the vid I said that nothing is ever proven in science. You can prove things in math, but not in science. A scientific theory can pass many tests, and we can have tremendous confidence in it, but there is never an ultimate test that would serve as final proof. You and ranchai are arguing with that fact. If you disagree, please provide a counter example.
@Oldspiceguyshorse He meant that you can prove abstract things in mathematics, like you can prove that the derivative of 2x is 2. It doesn't, however, contain factual content about the world, just analytic content.
You have the correct stick, but you're holding the wrong end. If it's "intangible", there's no proof that it *does* exist. "Proving" that something doesn't exist would require a simultaneous check of all locations in the Universe for some evidence. The point is not that there is no proof your unicorn *doesn't* exist; rather, the point is that there is no proof that it *does*. If you claim the unicorn exists, it's up to you to provide evidence to back up your claim.
@ranchai100 No, it's not 100% fact. Because we realize it through empirical data. What if we're hallucinating? What if our mind doesn't correctly perceive sense data? The honest person will always reserve some modicum of uncertainty toward these processes, and hold all laws of nature as just extremely well-defended theories. They live their lives as if these laws will always be true, but they know intellectually that they are fallible.
@colossus999 I would agree with you if the experiments were done by 1 group of people alone,but all therys must be peer reviewed by different groups of scientists,and the experiments are recreated more than once.So unless all the scientists in the world are suffering from mass hallucination at the same time about the same thing,which is statistaclly immprobable,then we can assume that what is proven is proven
@ranchai100 It's not a matter mass hallucination. The problem is with the principles of induction. Because gravity has always effected us, we assume that it always will, but we can't actually know that. Since it always has worked, it seems likely that it will keep working, and we are rational in assuming it will, but we can't know that what has happened in the past will definitely happen in the future.
"Nothing can be proven scientifically"...and yet, we've reached such a level in science...If it wasn't for those "stupid scientists" you wouldn't have had a computer or Internet to expose your useless beliefs... :))
@Rettequetette It's an example of theistic stupidity. Since the atheist doesn't believe in a god, they are expected (through self-projection) to have some answer for "How did everything come from nothing?" and the like.
As such it is assumed by theists that atheists "know all about the Big Bang theory" (despite the disconnect) because otherwise they would say that 'God did it' and hence not be atheists. And (through self-projection) 'I don't know' is the same as 'God did it' to theists.
@Rettequetette The Big Bang theory contradicts the ''theory'' where ''god'' formed the world.... And if there WAS a Big Bang, then that would mean god didn't exist.... Of course Christians, if they ever start being more ''open-minded'' (Which christianity isn't.) and they will start to say that the Big Bang itself was made by the dynamite of ''God''.. Christianity has no place in the future.. Buddism is the only religion i think can have a place in the future..
@Rettequetette Fuddies think all scientists are atheists and out to prove there is no god. They can't prove evolution is wrong, they even like micro evolution so stuff on the Ark can fill the earth, so they move the goal posts back to the beginning of the universe. The chicken or egg first question taken to the extreme.
@Rettequetette being an atheist has no link to how much you know about big bang theory, however being a scientist, more specifically, a cosmologist definitely does!
Believing in God usually goes hand in hand with saying that God created all things. However, when you learn the origins of things, and you see that science explains so much and we have so much yet to learn, you conclude that there is a possibility God might not exist. And then you seek real proof He does, and don't find it.
@Rettequetette because christians think that to stop believing in god you need to have every answer ever imagined answered by science. it doesn't cross their mind that it could also be because god makes no sense.
@Rettequetette: "I don't understand why atheists are supposed to know all about the Big Bang theory."
Yeah, apparently since we don't believe in god, we're automatically supposed to understand and be able to explain every scientific principle known to man. And if we admit there are things we don't know, then "GOD DID IT!!" is supposed to be the only alternative answer.
But maybe it's just easier for these people to believe in a magical sky-god that's responsible for everything.
The problem is.. they can apply "GODDIDIT" to virtually everything.. they want answers for the questions that they answered with "magical sky daddiness".
Since you can't answer them all, their flawed logic suggests they are safe to dismiss what you can too, at least as long as it goes against their idiotic default answer aka irrational bullshit hammered into their heads..
Which is why the majority of believers reject ANY science when it contradicts their belief.
@realbojay: Yup, that's the way they think. Because I personally can't answer every question in the universe, that (to them) automatically means that "GODDIDIT" is a perfectly reasonable "explanation".
Seriously, that kind of "explanation" is truly insane.
@realbojay: "if you don't care if the answers to your questions are true or not LOL"
Exactly. Although I think many of them realize deep down that everything they believe in is utter horsecrap. They just can't bear to face it because that means everything they "know" is wrong. And people hate that. They'd rather die than be wrong.
@realbojay Creationist organizations even openly admit that on their mission statements, these people aren't interested in searching for the truth, they claim they have the truth already.
Yeah i know.. statement of faith and stuff.. basically saying
"we believe whatever some superstitious slave driving murdering ignorant pedophiles wrote into their incoherent contradicting scriptures claiming to write down the word of god, instead to take a good look at 'god's creation'"
gravity makes time slow down? I know the faster you move through space the slower you move through time. are you referring to black holes or something?
The points made in this video may be lost on the person you are answering to, but (hopefully) not the rest of your audience. This was a very clear and concice basic intro to the methodology that lead to the big bang theory.
3:00-3:20 You have obviously never ran into a thinking and questioning theist/deist. I believe in the existence of an Omnipotent God, and I am DEFINITELY not afraid to admit there are things I can't be certain of. However, to be an atheist you must also admit the same. So really, atheism becomes the religion of the lack of religion. Like it or not, you must put your faith somewhere, in corrupted men or in God. Choose wisely, good friend.
"Like it or not, you must put your faith somewhere, in corrupted men or in God. "
No, that is a false choice. The "God" into which you have put your faith could easyly be a human construct and therefore not deserving of any special status.
I am an atheist that does not believe the big bang ever occured. Primarily, it is a theory and a noted obeservation through 'the red shift' shows that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. This means that the singularity point can no longer be calculated along a linear relationship as demonstrated through this video.
@vig220 We must asume that the big bang did not create this because the physical force of the event would have allowed the universe to expand, but the rate of such expansion would have followed a linear path or a 'big crunch' would follow rapid expansion in which case the universe would callapse in on-itself. This phenomena observed with the red-shift is not evidence of a god, or dark matter, or anything reliable at this point. This should make for interesting study in the future though.
@ozmoroid Pardon me, but shouldn't we expect something to be proven if it's presented as fact? It seems to me, as long as you're "trying" to find an answer, the question is still unanswered. I have no respect for you or your theories. You clowns constantly load questions and change ground whenever challenged. Your model is preached as fact in schools yet when questioned you immediately hide behind your ignorance barrier of; "nothing can be proven".
@knowwaie The expansion of the universe is an observed fact. The Law of Inertia is an observed fact. Put those together and you've got a 13-or-so billion year old universe. You have no respect for scientific theories? Then clearly your respect is not worth having. "You clowns" you mean scientists? Let me guess, you typed that on a computer. You fundies provide non-stop laughs. Thanks for that.
@ozmoroid Computers are just a theory?... You're either terrible at being honest or you're terribly mentally handicapped. Who has denied inertia or the expansion of the universe? It's you who is assuming the the universe popped into existence of it's own accord. This assumption is the "theory" part (i really have to tell you that?). I can't even laugh, you're so deluded you seriously don't know the difference between theory and reality anymore. By the way, 'scientist' are not 'science'.... !?
I still don't get what the difference a hypothesis and theory is... Without googling it. Boy I am not good at that science stuff :/ But I do know that a theory is more... precise per se.
TearsOfWar1 3 weeks ago
@TearsOfWar1 Its simple, a hypothesis is basically an idea or guess about an outcome of a experiment or how something works.
A theory is a set of ideas that have been proven through experiment/ research.
defiythelie 3 weeks ago
Make a paradox video.
TearsOfWar1 3 weeks ago
i have just thought of 7 ways, to prove the sun will "raise" tomorrow, and it dosnt rise, its a rotation efect, so, you should be really stupid, ill tell you that.
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG "It doesn't rise" - in the Earth's frame of reference it does rise. Please see my Relativity series and then explain my stupidity. Also, please present your best proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
ozmoroid 2 months ago 2
@ozmoroid
the sun its not going to die, tomorrow (i wont explain this, theres not enought space...)
our planet wont stop rotating, in the next 24 hours, and theres no cosmologic threat, asteroids etc(cant explain it, not enought space)
so if the sun wont die tomorrow, and theres nothing that can avoid the earth from doing hes rotation, that we know in time its a 24 hr cicle, therefor tomorrow the sun will "raise", but i rather prefer to know that the sun will be seen, he never moved...
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG Please prove that our planet won't stop rotating in the next 24 hours.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid
like i said the simple answer its that the poles are still here, and cant just vanish, the elipse where the earth gravitates its still here, and since gravity still exist, the elipse still exist and theres no cosmologic threat outside the earth that we know about and can move the earth outside hes gravitatory elipse, theres nothing that can stop the earth spinning, making this a 24 hrs cicle based in our 12 months gravitation elipse, dont know the words on english, but its not hard..
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG It is only a fact when it is observed to happen. Before that it's a prediction based on a theory. Now it's an incredibly solid theory, I grant you. But you cannot "prove" that the sun will rise. You can only say it's consistent with everything we know about physics. In fact the way physics advances is when firmly held assumptions fail to predict experiment.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid By your reasoning before about 1900 I could have "proven" that all clocks run at the same rate (and I'd be wrong - so obviously that wasn't a proof). That is what all observation and theory up to that time said was the case. I could have "proven" that an electron cannot pass through two separate slits simultaneously (and I'd be wrong again). And on and on. I am not going to bet money that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but I cannot "prove" it. Math has proof; physics does not.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid
i doubt i can make you think what you belief is, it seems that even if i prove it, over and over again, you just refute any single argument, this isnt a theory in anyway, its a fact that the sun will "raise" tomorrow, in fact i can prove right now 06/11/2011 that the sun will raise everyday from tomorrow, to 50 years beggening tomorrow, since theres nothing near the earth, in this lapse of 50 years i will probably be death by then, but the future generations cant see how dumb you are
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG: The point is that you didn't get his point, and you maybe never will. He is as certain as you (and me) are that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet, you can't prove it before tomorrow.
To keep it scientific: There might be things we haven't thought about or come across in nature that'll prevent the sun from rising tomorrow. We - as a species - can do mistakes, only being fed by our (still) narrow minds.
Talk more straightly: What if a thermonuclear war rips the planet tonight?
GGGNVideos 2 months ago
arguing with a person that cant understand, beyond hes beliefs its pointless, i rather teach my cat to speak, and i know thats imposible, but hey ill give it a shoot, it has more sence than you learning or thinking for a change.
WeskerPG 2 months ago
making your concept, not a theory or proof, you made an assuption, that it wasnt based on facts, im an atheist and i do know the facts to tell you that tomorrow the sun will raise, its not an asumption or an hipothesys, its an event that we have study for ages, and that we know why, how and when its going to happend, we know so much about that that theres information on where and when in wich cities, or parts it will show at what hour, again im proving this its a fact, not a theory
WeskerPG 2 months ago
You see, I do agree with the big bang theory. The only part I don't agree on, is that it happened by "chance". That's extremely sketchy. I don't dislike science. I just dislike how atheists put Christians down. Of course, we can force our beliefs upon anyone, so why can't we just live in peace along side one another? That's all I've wanted.
XxAdamJxX 2 months ago
@XxAdamJxX People deserve respect, but ideas do not. I can live quite peacefully with Christians, Muslims, Bigfoot enthusiasts and UFO abduction fans. But, orthodox Christianity clearly holds that I will burn in Hell for all eternity and actually deserve to. Many Christians feel like they need to tell me this ("witness/preach"). That's kinda a put down, no? This has been going on for 2,000 years and now some of us pushing back.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid Sorry I meant to say that we "can't" force people to believe. But Christians really shouldn't be terrorizing others about deserving to burn in hell. I mean, whenever a city didn't want to listen to Yahushua(Jesus) he'd just turn around and let those people be. I wish it were still that way now. But instead we have people talking so much about how unbelievers deserve to burn. We should really approach everyone with love. Anyway, God bless you <3 I hope that doesn't anger you :l
XxAdamJxX 2 months ago
@XxAdamJxX No anger on my part at all. I am a peaceful, live and let live type of guy. I know that more civilized Christians emphasize the loving aspects of their religion, but the Bible is very clear about the burn in Hell stuff. For example, let me ask you a question. My father died a few years ago. He was not a Christian (indeed, not religious in any way). Is he in Heaven or Hell right now, according to your beliefs?
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid You know, that is something I also think about. Because it is said that Yahushua cried out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do!". So really, I wouldn't know what happens after death. Another thing that gets me, is how many people who do not believe in God or just don't really follow their religion, have seen part of the afterlife and described it as pure love. So really we don't know what the truth is :l But according to what Jesus taught before he was crucified (cont.)
XxAdamJxX 2 months ago
@ozmoroid your father would be there. It hurts me to say that cause I wouldn't like to imagine such a thing for anyone. Not even the most evil person that would seem to deserve such punishment. However, I wish the best for your father brother <3
XxAdamJxX 2 months ago
@ozmoroid But what I personally believe, is that all punishment should only be reserved for Satan and his angels for leading people astray. If they were the cause of sin, then they should rightfully deserve the punishment. Unfortunately I do not know God's thoughts or what Justice really is. Only he does. It bothers me to talk about hell :l
XxAdamJxX 2 months ago
@XxAdamJxX Ozmoroid is too decent a person to tell you to take god, jesus, satan, hell, and shove them squarely up your ignorant ass. But I'm not. So take god, jesus, satan, hell, and shove them squarely up your ignorant ass.
fdasherv 2 months ago
@fdasherv You sir, have anger problems. Please go see a therapist :)
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@fdasherv And Im ignorant? You're the one who accepts bs and eats it all up like a kid in a candy store. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to back up evolution. The whole thing is FLAWED. Just a bunch of ideas that spewed out of a man's brain to try and prove that there is no God. I'll tell you something though. If ANYONE were to try and prove evolution to be true, they'd only find that there was after all a creator. To think otherwise is foolish. We don't even come close to knowing EVERYTHING.
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX So don't even give me sh*t. Once you yourself have proven to me that evolution is true, then you can tell me how ignorant I am ;)
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX You're ignorant. And stupid.
fdasherv 1 month ago
@fdasherv Apparently not ;)
Take care :)
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX No proof? Google talkorigins, there's enough proof there to keep you reading for a few hours.
Darwin believed in god, I highly doubt he was trying to "prove that there is no God"
Even if evolution were proven false, it would not bring you any closer to proving that god did it. You need to provide positive evidence for such a claim, not just say "well have you got a better idea?"
Of course we don't know everything, that's why we have science, to try to find out
cm3007235 1 month ago
@cm3007235 Seriously? Where is the evidence? I need more than just words written on paper to support the claims. I mean, I can rant on about something scientific too, but I need to see the proof. I have nothing against science. But saying that there is no God is something completely foolish. Like I said, we don't know everything.
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX Saying that there is no god is completely equivalant to saying there are no unicorns, or fairies, or magic toadstools. There is no evidence for any of them so they are all on equal footing.
As for evidence for evolution- go read a book, or a website or whatever. If you don't trust them, go spend your life investigating it yourself. But you haven't got the time presumably, so maybe the 100s of scientists who do spend their life investigating should be trusted?
cm3007235 1 month ago
@cm3007235 Not at all. God is a being that created everything. Yes, a being because he could very well be the energy that started off everything in the first place. Seriously, there's no legit evidence. Some scientists stumble in debates with creationists when it comes to this. There has never been evolution, just extinctions of different species which were created. Natural selection displays that clearly.
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX Ah.... so you're just defining god into existance. Essentially giving whatever started the universe the name "god".
cm3007235 1 month ago
@cm3007235 klj;lkj;SDLFKJA;LSKDJF;LAKSJDF;LKAJS;LDKFJ;LKASDF
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@cm3007235 Of course. After all, he did create the universe. So whatever created the universe must be God :)
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX In a blackhole time comes to a dead stop. And people like to think that everything exists because of a cause. You know, the ole' "cause and effect" theory. But here's a big problem with having a cause (by anything, including your god) of the universe: When the universe was just a singularity, time did not exist. The universe could not have had a cause because there was no time for the cause to exist in. Think about that last sentence.
thybigballs 1 month ago
@cm3007235 If we are made of light at our smallest level, where does that light go? It doesn't just die off. It cannot decay, because it is not matter. Without light/energy, there is no matter. Life continues on and on. For all of eternity. I don't just stop with what my mind takes in, I continue asking questions. That's where logic comes in. I begin wondering about everything. There most definitely is a God and an afterlife. It doesn't end here.
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@cm3007235 Funny. You can trust guys when it comes to something of your convenience but you can trust a book which accurately describes our past? Even at that, it describes the miracles which Jesus performed. And you can't trust that. So really all you're doing is relying on faith with your science, just as I am with my God.
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
@XxAdamJxX No, i'm trusting scientists because they have proven themselves reliable again and again and again. All technology came from science. Medicine. Infastructure. Physics. They base their findings on evidence and experiments which can be re-produced by anyone once they are told how. Scientific explanations make logical sense.
Religion however is based on what bronze age peasents wrote down on paper, with nothing to explain why they would be trustworthy.
cm3007235 1 month ago
@cm3007235 *can't
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fdasherv So don't even give me sh*t. Once you yourself have proven to me that evolution is true, then you can tell me how ignorant I am ;)
XxAdamJxX 1 month ago
this vid was just as good the 2nd time.
thumbs up.
peace bro.
lardo444 3 months ago
715 likes vs 14 dislikes. Now that is a success story
captaindisguise 4 months ago
logic takes a back seat? I think you mean "common sense".
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj logical deductions are only as good as the axioms they are built on. The history of science has seen many "illogical" concepts experimentally established as true, requiring us to go back and change our foundational axioms. In that sense logic takes a back seat to experiment. Indeed, scientific progress is usually the result of logical deductions from current theories being shown wrong experimentally.
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@ozmoroid logic in science can never take a back seat. When prior assumptions are shown to be wrong by experiment, this is logic in action. If it wasn't for logic, how would we decide that our previous assumptions were wrong? If we have a premise A and conclusion B, and experiment shows B to be false, it is logic that's compelling us to conclude that A must be wrong.
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj True, but my point is that the experimental result is "in the driver's seat" in this process. Logicians argued for centuries that heavy object fall faster than light objects. It took Galileo's experiment to correct this fallacy. Starting from false premises, no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions. Science works precisely because experiment is the ultimate determiner of "truth."
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@ozmoroid I know exactly what you mean, but you're wording it the wrong way, and this was my point to begin with. You still shouldn't say that logic takes a back seat. Also you're still wrong on "no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions". All conclusions in physics rely on math, and math is nothing but logic.
hasenj 4 months ago
@hasenj Please read the entire sentence. STARTING FROM FALSE PREMISES, no amount of logic can result in correct conclusions. Are you seriously disputing this?
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@hasenj Math is kind of an Axiom in itself.
ohanatachiable 3 months ago
"Answers that might be wrong ... especially if they rest on zero evidence." except that life came spontaneously from non-life.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson #1 - I don't claim to know that life came from non-life. I would say that only when we can demonstrate abiogenesis experimentally can we really claim it as a fact. #2 - there is quite a bit of research on abiogenesis that has shown the plausibility of many of the chemical reaction required for biological molecules to develop from simpler precursors.
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@ozmoroid "... only when we can demonstrate abiogenesis experimentally can we really claim it as a fact." I wish others would be as careful about this, which is why your #2 is so surprising. It has only been with the coaxing of the experimenters that the chemical reactions have made anything that doesn't disassociate as easily as it associate--and of course even coming up with an amino acid is a far cry from producing an organism that has a means of locomotion and DNA code for reproduction.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
The sun "rises"? Is that scientific?
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Certainly. From the point of view of someone on Earth, the Sun rises. If you take a time-lapse video of a "sunrise" you will see the sun "rising." All that means is that the Sun's distance from the horizon increases with time.
ozmoroid 4 months ago
@ozmoroid POV answers it, and I have no difficulty with this description. It is just that Bible writers are called ignorant for this same description.
MorganMarvinson 4 months ago
why are people viewing a video with a guy who admits he doesnt know anything youtube truly is amusing
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned Are you referring to Richard Feynman?
ozmoroid 4 months ago
Oh ozomoriod if you want me to I can explain in detail hos the university works, it's shape and why it is finite
1zacster 5 months ago
Please no background music
1zacster 5 months ago
I love ur intro hahaha
OZZZZZZZMOROIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDD
hazza1o1 6 months ago
I find it interesting that all atheists accept that matter must have started at some point, but none of them have an explanation for how it all began. No one has an answer for this question. Just an observation...
Granpire 6 months ago
@Granpire The could just say "Goddidit!" That would explain everything. ;-) You are correct. Science does not currently know everything there is to know. There are several speculative theories about the origin of the Big Bang, and each of those is an "explanation for how it all began." Until one of those theories makes a testable prediction, however, they will remain speculative. I find it interesting that religion has contributed basically zilch to our understanding of nature.
ozmoroid 6 months ago 7
Science nor Atheists "claim" to know everything, the starting point of matter included. That being as it may doesn't make Christianity (or any other religion) more valid. That's an illogical path to follow.
TruthNotReligion 6 months ago
@Granpire Oops! I meant don't claim**, didn't make that clear enough!
TruthNotReligion 6 months ago
@Granpire you're an idiot and you haven't listened to a word this video stated. Nobody knows how matter came into existence, theists only CLAIM they know. The origins of matter, space and time are currently UNKNOWABLE. However, I can make a scientific observation and claim that you're an ass and will still be an ass tomorrow.
liadsman 5 months ago
@Granpire
that just proves that we don't know it
but we go one step further when it comes to finding truth, we say "WE DON'T FU**ING KNOW YET"
so we are open to suggestions and still try to find the answer, unlike delusional idiots who say "well it was my imaginary friend, now i can die in piece and get my eternal orgasm"
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay Hear hear
uglyandbad 5 months ago
@Granpire I'm an atheist and I don't accept that matter must have started at some point. Matter MIGHT have started at some point, but it isn't necessary that it ever came into existence from nothing. That affirmative claim is:
a) Unsubstantiated
b) Contrary to established laws of physics (particularly conservation of mass/energy)
c) Not required to explain the history of the universe with our current understanding of space-time.
mistajames3213 5 months ago
@mistajames3213
I'll give you point (a), because we have no evidence of what came *before* the Big Bang. Point (b), however, is incorrect -- it is possible that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum; this does not conflict with theory. And as to point (c), while you're correct that the claim is not necessary, it is *sufficient* as an explanation, absent evidence beyond what we now know. Ultimately, you may turn out to be right; no one can say at this point.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
@pseudorandomly I denied the general claim that matter MUST have come from somewhere. I have never made a positive claim that matter always existed.
I'll steal a line from Thank You for Smoking:
"If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
mistajames3213 5 months ago
@mistajames3213
I understand precisely what you're claiming. I'm just pointing out that your point (b) is incorrect. I'll leave you to wrestle with the logical conundrum that you don't accept that matter must have started at some point while at the same time avoiding the claim that it has always existed.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
@Granpire In science, it's acceptable to say "I don't know" about some phenomenon, rather than making up some ad hoc answer, all for the sake of having an answer.
Akira625 5 months ago
As socrates was quoted as saying, "All I know is that I know nothing."
Deanbass77 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Deanbass77
"As socrates was quoted as saying, "All I know is that I know nothing.""
please use the entire quote
"... but i know that you know that i know that you know that i know more than you will ever know"
realbojay 5 months ago
Good video Ozmo, however one suggestion: could you please cut the background music? I find it a bit distracting.
playadominical 6 months ago
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant of ignorance.
scotttebben 6 months ago
Why do christian simpletons always want 100% proof that no god exist from us Atheists but do not require any proof at all for their god to be real? The bible tells me so. This is there proof. Fucking retarded.
scotttebben 6 months ago
i don't know if i learned something, or my brain just short-curcuited, but my head hurts -_-
Buckskinhorizon 7 months ago
I quit seeing the video at 1:00, when you say it's illogical that velocity and gravity makes time slow...
Sorry, buddy, saying that is illogical means someone don't know what is neither of then. Don't know what is velocity, what is gravity, and don't even know what is logical. Cause the effect of relativity is very logical.
If you wanted to say its amazing, I would agree. But it's not illogical. Relativity does not contradictate reality.
bragdale 7 months ago
@bragdale You might want to see my series on Relativity.
ozmoroid 7 months ago 2
@bragdale Logic is not an objective fact of the cosmos. The point is that we can look at something and it can contradict what we would call logical, in some way, but that doesn't mean that the thing does not represent reality.
SlaughterMeister 7 months ago
@SlaughterMeister
No, it cannot. It can contradict an impression. It can contradict a first impression based on a first observation. Then, if SEEMS to contradicts logic, it only means that you don't comprehend the phenomenon correctly.
bragdale 7 months ago
@bragdale sorry pal, i think you need to brush up on your definition of the term 'logic'
playadominical 6 months ago
@bragdale what a douchebag you are. he clearly meant it's counter intuitive and against the logic of a common person. wow, you're a douche.
liadsman 5 months ago
@bragdale
I'll agree that there is some conflating of the terms "illogical" and "counterintuitive" here. But the logic of relativity comes only *after* the realization that the speed of light is a finite constant for all observers. Absent that rather recent fact, it is certainly counterintuitive (to some, "illogical") that how fast your car is moving changes how fast your wristwatch ticks, or means that your watch ticks faster on the 10th floor than it does at ground level.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
The sun never rises, actually. Also, it's not a theory, it's a prediction, a.k.a. hypothesis. A theory explains the facts. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is not an explanation. :)
Samuraionthewall 7 months ago
Very good response. I like the background music too.
ensittare 7 months ago
Great video! Liked and favorited.
Impalamark64 8 months ago
I enjoy your calm toned response. It was clear, direct, and easy to follow. it did not involve bashing any person or group of people, just a mere train of logic.
Chimpalimp1001 8 months ago
Making Atheists think? I would suggest hooking their heads up to a car battery.
strattgatt 9 months ago
@strattgatt Tsk, tsk...you didn't watch the video, did you? Be honest.
alphaenemy 9 months ago
It's interesting that he asks for 100% proof from you, yet makes his ghost-god claims on conjecture, which provides zero% evidence.
In a universe where we can't know anything 100% for certain, science not religion, brings us the closest.
Cootabux 9 months ago
hmm looks like 6 pinheads mist the like button
Gmandark 9 months ago
Big Bang theory is just a JOKE
KatiushaVN4 9 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 The level of ignorance you must have in order to make this comment is staggering.
syn010110 8 months ago
@syn010110
Then I ask you a question to see if you can answer:
The question is:
"At what speed is the Big Bang traveling?" (the universe is expanding still)
KatiushaVN4 8 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 73.5 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc)
mccabe1958 8 months ago
@mccabe1958
The age of the universe is approx. 12 billions years, right?? And with that speed you gave me, the size of the universe is small as hell up until now...LOL How can it contains billions of galaxies???
KatiushaVN4 8 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 The best estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 billion years based on OBSERVATIONS. I teach astronomy and you are asking questions that I would answer after two months of background and mathematics in my course. But you want me to respond on a youtube comment so you can understand? How should I do that. You can read about the science yourself, how these things are arrived at and what the evidence is (check Wikipedia). Your estimate is incorrect on size with these numbers.
mccabe1958 8 months ago
@mccabe1958
Well, you know the speed of the expansion of the Big Bang and just do the math, according to the age of the universe, you could tell how big the universe is, right??
But again, to me, that speed was/is too slow to in order to make the universe this big. For example, to go across our galaxy, you gotta spend 100K years at the speed of light. But the universe has billions of galaxy like that. So big, right?? How is that speed (73.5 Km/s) able to hold such an immense space? Be Logical
KatiushaVN4 8 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 the original figure I gave you is the rate of expansion 75.5 km/s PER Mega Parsec. It is NOT linear, the further a thing is away from us the faster it is moving and the rate of expansion appears to be increasing. The observable universe is 13.75 billion light years in all directions from the earth - BUT the size of the universe is bigger than that, what we can actually SEE and how big it is are different things. It is a complex subject and idea - BASED ON EVIDENCE!
mccabe1958 8 months ago
@mccabe1958
Hah, now you say the age of the universe is 13.7 billion LIGHT YEARS. Nice try!
Then according to you, that also makes the planet earth 4.5 billions LIGHT YEARS of age, too. Hahaha
I know my idea is pretty hard to answer because it's logically solid . But if you wanna use my idea to ask other people, please make sure that you're authorized by me first.
KatiushaVN4 8 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 Holy cow! Are you SERIOUS??? A light year is a measure of distance AND it can be used to measure time. This is a fairly simple concept, you seen the speed of light is a constant, "c" (as in E=MC^2), as such the distance light travels in a year (~6 trillion miles), takes ONE YEAR (a unit of time), so I can talk about a light YEAR as distance or time, based on context. If you can't fathom that, you are WAY out of your league in trying to understand the idea of the big bang.
mccabe1958 8 months ago
@mccabe1958
Look, if you now say the age of the universe is 13.7 billions light years, then when the universe became 9.2 billion light years old, so that time the earth was born. Right? Because Time and Space all travel the same. Imagine in your head a circle (universe) its centre (Big Bang) its radius 9.2 cm (9.2 billion light years), the earth must have been born right on the edge of the circle (Time and Space are the same). Are you with me??
KatiushaVN4 8 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 I understand what you are saying. But you do NOT understand the cosmology involved! The big bang was not an explosion IN space, it was the creation of matter AND space, there is no such thing as a "edge" like you are saying. And the earth was not created "on" any edge. There is no "middle" in the universe. Here is a decent youtube video that explains the details /watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo
mccabe1958 8 months ago
On that note, I think it's perfectly reasonable for personal beliefs to 'fill in the blanks' of the big bang for themselves. Until researchers actually do discover what caused the universe to come into existence in the first place, go nuts!
TuahShinguru 9 months ago
@TuahShinguru Noo don't go nuts! that's why 9/11 occured..
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon Perhaps that was a bad phrase to use... o _o
TuahShinguru 9 months ago
@TuahShinguru Relinquish supernatural belief! it leads to dangerous beliefs that life now doesn't matter and the afterlife does! Leading to things like 9/11. denouncement of science and prayer-instead-of-medicine death, and discrimination of other faiths! Its badddd!
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon Who said I believe in the supernatural? I'm just saying that it's reasonable to believe in it -after- the understanding of science.
TuahShinguru 9 months ago
@TuahShinguru I think physics explains clearly that physical things can affect physical things. I don't think anything nonphysical is warranted. And if one really understands science, they don't make up stuff, they instead look for answers
iliveon 9 months ago
thats rediculouse.the sun always rises and thats 100% fact.to say something cant be proven is also rediculous.an example would be its 100% proven that there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer.Although when it comes to 2nd hand smoke I have a problem with that connection
ranchai100 10 months ago
@ranchai100 The sun has always risen, but I've never seen a "proof" that it will rise tomorrow. If you have a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it. Smoking causes a statistically significant increase in lung cancer rates, but it does not cause cancer 100% of the time. There have been heavy smokers who lived to be 100 and never got cancer. Each of those people is a counter-example to your claim. Things can be proven in mathematics, but not in science.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid actually you have a point about smoking and I stand corrected.when you say though youve never seen proof for the sun rising tomorrow are you talking about it not rising due to unforseen circumstance or natural disaster?
ranchai100 10 months ago
@ranchai100 Any "proof" that the sun will rise tomorrow would be interesting. Likewise, any "proof" that gravity will exist tomorrow would be of interest. Indeed, any proof of any scientific statement.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid
If you deny objective consistency. your insane. There isnt "proof" by your definition of anything. I could be speaking one day and suddenly grow 38 feet then shrink to an ion's size. Just because something CAN happen, doesnt mean it has any relevance on what WILL happen.
If gravity has been in effect since the beginning of time (presumably) then it is expected that it will be in effect tomorrow. Similar to the sun rising, similar to the human need for oxygen.
doesnt prove god btw
Oldspiceguyshorse 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse Pure 100% "proof" exists in mathematics. There is no such proof in physics. The problem is that many of the things we now accept as true were once considered "obviously" ridiculous. Time dilation? Wave-particle duality? Black holes? Obviously I live as if I'm 100% certain the sun will come up tomorrow. But it is a misuse of the term to call that massively reasonable *assumption* proof. If something can happen then obviously there cannot be any proof that it cannot happen.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid
You got me man. Your so good. Damn, i feel stupid now.
Proof that something cannot happen? That sounds a lot like proving a negative.Similar to "theres no proof against a giant flying invisible intangible unicorn sitting on my lap, its a viable option"
^see how silly that is?
Please wake up and realize that your wrong, and continuing this argument is putting you in a really negative light.
Oldspiceguyshorse 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse (Appeal to ridicule fail.) No, I'm not wrong. In the vid I said that nothing is ever proven in science. You can prove things in math, but not in science. A scientific theory can pass many tests, and we can have tremendous confidence in it, but there is never an ultimate test that would serve as final proof. You and ranchai are arguing with that fact. If you disagree, please provide a counter example.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@ozmoroid
Are you saying things can only be proven with mathematics?
Or that everything can be proven with mathematics?
Oldspiceguyshorse 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse He meant that you can prove abstract things in mathematics, like you can prove that the derivative of 2x is 2. It doesn't, however, contain factual content about the world, just analytic content.
colossus999 10 months ago
@colossus999 Precisely.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@Oldspiceguyshorse
You have the correct stick, but you're holding the wrong end. If it's "intangible", there's no proof that it *does* exist. "Proving" that something doesn't exist would require a simultaneous check of all locations in the Universe for some evidence. The point is not that there is no proof your unicorn *doesn't* exist; rather, the point is that there is no proof that it *does*. If you claim the unicorn exists, it's up to you to provide evidence to back up your claim.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
@ranchai100 No, it's not 100% fact. Because we realize it through empirical data. What if we're hallucinating? What if our mind doesn't correctly perceive sense data? The honest person will always reserve some modicum of uncertainty toward these processes, and hold all laws of nature as just extremely well-defended theories. They live their lives as if these laws will always be true, but they know intellectually that they are fallible.
colossus999 9 months ago
@colossus999 I would agree with you if the experiments were done by 1 group of people alone,but all therys must be peer reviewed by different groups of scientists,and the experiments are recreated more than once.So unless all the scientists in the world are suffering from mass hallucination at the same time about the same thing,which is statistaclly immprobable,then we can assume that what is proven is proven
ranchai100 9 months ago
@ranchai100 It's not a matter mass hallucination. The problem is with the principles of induction. Because gravity has always effected us, we assume that it always will, but we can't actually know that. Since it always has worked, it seems likely that it will keep working, and we are rational in assuming it will, but we can't know that what has happened in the past will definitely happen in the future.
colossus999 9 months ago
Excellent synopsis of scientific thought and method.
GermanChocolateCake 10 months ago
"Nothing can be proven scientifically"...and yet, we've reached such a level in science...If it wasn't for those "stupid scientists" you wouldn't have had a computer or Internet to expose your useless beliefs... :))
slim240293 10 months ago
That was beautifully well explained. I learned a few things here :) Great video.
HitchardDawkens 11 months ago
I don't understand why atheists are supposed to know all about the Big Bang theory.
What does cosmology have to do with not believing in gods?
Rettequetette 1 year ago 65
@Rettequetette It's an example of theistic stupidity. Since the atheist doesn't believe in a god, they are expected (through self-projection) to have some answer for "How did everything come from nothing?" and the like.
As such it is assumed by theists that atheists "know all about the Big Bang theory" (despite the disconnect) because otherwise they would say that 'God did it' and hence not be atheists. And (through self-projection) 'I don't know' is the same as 'God did it' to theists.
onijester56 11 months ago
@onijester56 Yeah, I knew it must be something like that. The question was half-rhetorical.
Since we don't believe in God, we MUST have another answer, right? We're supposed to have an answer to all questions, just like them.
I still find it hard to imagine though, how people can think that way: either you can explain it, or "Goddiddit". No other possibilities *sigh*
Rettequetette 11 months ago
@Rettequetette The Big Bang theory contradicts the ''theory'' where ''god'' formed the world.... And if there WAS a Big Bang, then that would mean god didn't exist.... Of course Christians, if they ever start being more ''open-minded'' (Which christianity isn't.) and they will start to say that the Big Bang itself was made by the dynamite of ''God''.. Christianity has no place in the future.. Buddism is the only religion i think can have a place in the future..
geenius3ab 9 months ago
@Rettequetette Fuddies think all scientists are atheists and out to prove there is no god. They can't prove evolution is wrong, they even like micro evolution so stuff on the Ark can fill the earth, so they move the goal posts back to the beginning of the universe. The chicken or egg first question taken to the extreme.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@Rettequetette being an atheist has no link to how much you know about big bang theory, however being a scientist, more specifically, a cosmologist definitely does!
Believing in God usually goes hand in hand with saying that God created all things. However, when you learn the origins of things, and you see that science explains so much and we have so much yet to learn, you conclude that there is a possibility God might not exist. And then you seek real proof He does, and don't find it.
ramzevans 8 months ago 4
@Rettequetette because christians think that to stop believing in god you need to have every answer ever imagined answered by science. it doesn't cross their mind that it could also be because god makes no sense.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@Rettequetette: "I don't understand why atheists are supposed to know all about the Big Bang theory."
Yeah, apparently since we don't believe in god, we're automatically supposed to understand and be able to explain every scientific principle known to man. And if we admit there are things we don't know, then "GOD DID IT!!" is supposed to be the only alternative answer.
But maybe it's just easier for these people to believe in a magical sky-god that's responsible for everything.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
The problem is.. they can apply "GODDIDIT" to virtually everything.. they want answers for the questions that they answered with "magical sky daddiness".
Since you can't answer them all, their flawed logic suggests they are safe to dismiss what you can too, at least as long as it goes against their idiotic default answer aka irrational bullshit hammered into their heads..
Which is why the majority of believers reject ANY science when it contradicts their belief.
A lasting tragedy.
realbojay 4 months ago
@realbojay: Yup, that's the way they think. Because I personally can't answer every question in the universe, that (to them) automatically means that "GODDIDIT" is a perfectly reasonable "explanation".
Seriously, that kind of "explanation" is truly insane.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
Very effective in providing SOME answer though i must admit, at least if you don't care if the answers to your questions are true or not LOL
realbojay 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realbojay: "if you don't care if the answers to your questions are true or not LOL"
Exactly. Although I think many of them realize deep down that everything they believe in is utter horsecrap. They just can't bear to face it because that means everything they "know" is wrong. And people hate that. They'd rather die than be wrong.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@realbojay Creationist organizations even openly admit that on their mission statements, these people aren't interested in searching for the truth, they claim they have the truth already.
Akira625 3 months ago
@Akira625
Yeah i know.. statement of faith and stuff.. basically saying
"we believe whatever some superstitious slave driving murdering ignorant pedophiles wrote into their incoherent contradicting scriptures claiming to write down the word of god, instead to take a good look at 'god's creation'"
it is almost too sad to be funny.
realbojay 3 months ago
excellent vid. I'm going to have to watch some of your other ones now :)
narco73 1 year ago
Your sun rising thing is BS.
Science is isolating all factors and saying - given these factors, X will occur.
So the sun will rise, unless something intervenes. THAT is what is proven.
mindprism 1 year ago
Has anyone ever said that you sound a little like JaguarJ0nes
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
@hobbitsarecool You're the first. I like JJ's channel. Maybe something has rubbed off onto me? ;-)
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@SINghful1 It would be impressive if you presented a counter argument for something.
ozmoroid 1 year ago 19
gravity makes time slow down? I know the faster you move through space the slower you move through time. are you referring to black holes or something?
urantivirus 1 year ago
@urantivirus Yes, clocks run slower in a gravitational "well." The GPS system has to correct for this.
ozmoroid 1 year ago 3
@ozmoroid i see, thanks for the reply. :)
urantivirus 1 year ago
this is out of date... universe is 3x older
vicgal61 1 year ago
The points made in this video may be lost on the person you are answering to, but (hopefully) not the rest of your audience. This was a very clear and concice basic intro to the methodology that lead to the big bang theory.
TheStigma 1 year ago
Good video man but i think this is to much for a theist brain. They prefer to believe that god made it.
Atrofia2 1 year ago
The God debate is dead. Can you theists out there come to terms with that?
THEHARMONIKZ 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Yo oz, you da man.
peace, lardo.
lardo444 1 year ago
That was just bealttiful...
Goutyn 1 year ago
Nice video Ozmoroid, very well stated.
mydogbanjo 1 year ago
3:00-3:20 You have obviously never ran into a thinking and questioning theist/deist. I believe in the existence of an Omnipotent God, and I am DEFINITELY not afraid to admit there are things I can't be certain of. However, to be an atheist you must also admit the same. So really, atheism becomes the religion of the lack of religion. Like it or not, you must put your faith somewhere, in corrupted men or in God. Choose wisely, good friend.
Oh, and keep me thinking :)
Brants10 1 year ago
"Like it or not, you must put your faith somewhere, in corrupted men or in God. "
No, that is a false choice. The "God" into which you have put your faith could easyly be a human construct and therefore not deserving of any special status.
ma049 1 year ago
"So really, atheism becomes the religion of the lack of religion. "
Oh right, you mean in the same way that nudity is is clothing of lack of clothing.
You are talking tosh.
ma049 1 year ago
@Brants10 it takes no more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe that "Lord of the Rings" is not a historical account on middle earth.
emcitymisfit 1 year ago 2
@Brants10 Funny how corrupted men created the god you believe in and you say there's the choice between God and corrupted men.. Haha, epic.
xxRockst4r 11 months ago
I am an atheist that does not believe the big bang ever occured. Primarily, it is a theory and a noted obeservation through 'the red shift' shows that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. This means that the singularity point can no longer be calculated along a linear relationship as demonstrated through this video.
vig220 1 year ago
@vig220 We must asume that the big bang did not create this because the physical force of the event would have allowed the universe to expand, but the rate of such expansion would have followed a linear path or a 'big crunch' would follow rapid expansion in which case the universe would callapse in on-itself. This phenomena observed with the red-shift is not evidence of a god, or dark matter, or anything reliable at this point. This should make for interesting study in the future though.
vig220 1 year ago
...alot of man-made-up bs :'(
AlinaAleksandrovna 1 year ago
@AlinaAleksandrovna By "man-made-up" do you mean the observed expansion of the universe and the observed law of inertia?
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Pardon me, but shouldn't we expect something to be proven if it's presented as fact? It seems to me, as long as you're "trying" to find an answer, the question is still unanswered. I have no respect for you or your theories. You clowns constantly load questions and change ground whenever challenged. Your model is preached as fact in schools yet when questioned you immediately hide behind your ignorance barrier of; "nothing can be proven".
I've just proven that you're a lying hypocrite
knowwaie 1 year ago
@knowwaie The expansion of the universe is an observed fact. The Law of Inertia is an observed fact. Put those together and you've got a 13-or-so billion year old universe. You have no respect for scientific theories? Then clearly your respect is not worth having. "You clowns" you mean scientists? Let me guess, you typed that on a computer. You fundies provide non-stop laughs. Thanks for that.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Computers are just a theory?... You're either terrible at being honest or you're terribly mentally handicapped. Who has denied inertia or the expansion of the universe? It's you who is assuming the the universe popped into existence of it's own accord. This assumption is the "theory" part (i really have to tell you that?). I can't even laugh, you're so deluded you seriously don't know the difference between theory and reality anymore. By the way, 'scientist' are not 'science'.... !?
knowwaie 1 year ago