A simple question, I think

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by alexgb00
LiveFreeOrDie, i believe you. But here's one definition from my dictionary:

Definition 6 -- popularly, a mere conjecture, or guess.

If the BB theory is a simple "guess," a shot in the dark, why would you honestly wish to believe it?

Because "definition 6" is not the definition that scientists mean when they use the word "theory"! The BB theory is not just "a guess". It is a set of hypotheses that explain observations, primarily background radiation and galactic red shifts.

Your definition says the word comes from "spectator." But who was there to see it?

What matters here - the meaning of the root word in an ancient language or the meaning of the word as it is used today? I'm pretty sure English speakers using the word "theory" intend it to mean what other English speakers think it means, not what ancient Greek speakers might have though it means. (Did that make any sense?)

 

[Morat]

Morat, you are a living example of a darwinist -- filled with arrogant, foolish pride. You take cheap shots at Creationists, saying confidently that we <I>obviously</I> can't know much about physics, biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Sadly, I'm not a Darwinist. Nor was I taking cheap shots at Creationists. I was, in fact, responding to a cheap shot from Souljah.

&nbsp;&nbsp; I know exactly how much physics Souljah knows, because I have watched him painfully misunderstand basic quantum mechanics over and over, and been involved in two lengthy threads on the topic.

&nbsp; I hate that attitude in anybody, not just you. Maybe you should assume that you are talking to your intellectual equals. That will make your&nbsp;behavior a lot nicer.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions, Alex. Unless, of course, you feel that Souljah's behavior of interjecting a strawman comment of an argument he has failed to even demonstrate competence in the last two times we had it, aimed at me in a conversation that had nothing to do with it, wasn't a "cheap shot".

&nbsp;&nbsp; Your behavior would be improved by paying more attention, or at the very least checking your facts before you get involved.

&nbsp; Now, onto your "other" post. I'll assume you are my intellectual equal. Now, having assumed that, I can only stand here aghast at your blatant dishonesty and deceptive comments.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You, as a smart man, should know that dictionary definitions are written in order of usuage. Therefore, definition 6 would be one of the less common usuages. Further, being a smart and well-educated man, you would know that when discussing a word that is strictly defined by one group, and loosely defined by another, that you should always use the definition that suits the group in question.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Given that scientists define "Theory" quite rigourously, using a blatant laymen definition (you, as a smart man, understand what popularly means in the definition), as opposed to the strict definition scientists use, can only be a blatant attempt at a bait and switch.

&nbsp;&nbsp; For shame.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Have you seen the bumper sticker that reads: I believe in the Big Bang, God Spoke and Bang it happened?

Yes, my sister bought one of those. I saw one that says "Now even Darwin is convinced." It's true...

 

[chickenman]

what are the other 5 definitions alexgb00?

 

[crusafontia]

Hi all,

I have no physics training at all but I've always wondered what came before the big bang.&nbsp; I've read the posts in this thread and a few match my own&nbsp;impressions to a degree, although my&nbsp;interpretation is non-technical of course.&nbsp; Not&nbsp;even&nbsp;half-baked speculation, but&nbsp;based on things I've read before.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

I&nbsp;think that before the big bang, nothingness would exist for zero time.&nbsp; Since there was nothing for that instant, nothingness would include a&nbsp;lack of any law of behavior.&nbsp; If fact any sort of logic&nbsp; would not apply in this "environment".&nbsp; Nothingness would actually&nbsp;be tantamount&nbsp;to complete and utter chaos--not of matter and energy&nbsp;but of existence and logic.&nbsp; It follows that,&nbsp;in this completely bizarre world&nbsp;without common sense,&nbsp;all sorts of strange&nbsp;monstrosities, weird fields,&nbsp;&nbsp;and interacting particles&nbsp;with quasilogical behavior&nbsp;would appear out of nothing and disappear back to nothing in a blossom of failed experiments.&nbsp; And why not, logic and causality&nbsp;hasn't been invented yet.

Eventually (or&nbsp;instantly), in an evolution of sorts, the protouniverse would stumble on to a consistent enough set of rules to spontaneously create a complex universe such as ours.&nbsp; The infinite creativity of nothingness/weirdness/chaos&nbsp;might also simultaneously create infinite other viable universes with different physics, logic etc.&nbsp;

The question in this sort of alice in wonderland protouniverse would&nbsp;not be "why&nbsp;a universe" but "why not&nbsp;a universe".&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;