Lunar Water

[sandwiches]

Then why do they present their theories as if they know all the facts. Why say "The universe was formed from a Big Bang", a matter of fact statement? Why not say "We think the universe was formed from a Big Bang", a probability statement?

Weird... The first five links regarding the The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show,) after searching for it on Google show wording such as this:

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation."

Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe."

THE BIG BANG
"Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being.It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly."

WMAP Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe."

Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory
"According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang."

So, my question is: Why are you stating as fact what is obviously false?

 

[Doveaman]

Weird... The first five links regarding the The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show,) after searching for it on Google show wording such as this:
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation."
Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe."
THE BIG BANG
"Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being.It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly."
WMAP Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe."
Creation of a Cosmology: Big Bang Theory
"According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang."

So, my question is: Why are you stating as fact what is obviously false?

So the Big Bang is not a fact then? Got It.

 

[sandwiches]

So the Big Bang is not a fact then? Got It.

Of course not. No one was there to observe it, as far as we know. If someone told you otherwise, they misused the word "fact."

Has anyone told you it was a fact?

 

[Hespera]

So the Big Bang is not a fact then? Got It.

Sheesh. Why is theory and fact so hard to understand?

Try this. The prosecution offers a theory, that they propose to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be a fact and it may not be a fact that the guy is guilty.

There may not be a way to absolutely prove it. Scientific theories are about 'beyond a reasonable / known doubt" not about "proof" and 'fact".

The "big bang" may be fact and it may not.

 

[Hespera]

So the Big Bang is not a fact then? Got It.

.......

 

[Doveaman]

Sheesh. Why is theory and fact so hard to understand?

Try this. The prosecution offers a theory, that they propose to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be a fact and it may not be a fact that the guy is guilty.

There may not be a way to absolutely prove it. Scientific theories are about 'beyond a reasonable / known doubt" not about "proof" and 'fact".

The "big bang" may be fact and it may not.

So you don't know for sure then. Got it.

 

[Doveaman]

Sheesh. Why is theory and fact so hard to understand?

Try this. The prosecution offers a theory, that they propose to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be a fact and it may not be a fact that the guy is guilty.

There may not be a way to absolutely prove it. Scientific theories are about 'beyond a reasonable / known doubt" not about "proof" and 'fact".

The "big bang" may be fact and it may not.

So you don't know for sure then. Got it.

 

[Hespera]

So you don't know for sure then. Got it.

and you dont know that there isnt a god and that you are completely wasting your time.

 

[sandwiches]

So you don't know for sure then. Got it.

That's right. We don't know for sure.

Unlike in religious dogma and blind faith, scientists are not afraid to admit they don't know something or don't understand it fully. The moment you think you know, it's the moment you stop searching for answers.

 

[dad]

Great op-ed.

However, none of it stops science from producing verifiable results, practical applications, and testable predictions.

However, none of the predictions apply out of the present, and cannot be demonstrated to do so. All results or applications are right here! Not in the future universe, or far past. Why pretend?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Yes there is water on the Moon but you can't see it because it not visible from outside the hidden bases.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted ... that the moon contained houses...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

 

[dad]

and you dont know that there isnt a god and that you are completely wasting your time.

We do not know by physical only science....man's wisdom, but we do know by absolute spiritual evidences!

Try it, you just might like it. Don't be a stranger...

 

[dad]

Yes there is water on the Moon but you can't see it because it not visible from outside the hidden bases.
...

They can see it, they shot a missile and water was seen. They may be challenged, but they know that much.

 

[sandwiches]

However, none of the predictions apply out of the present, and cannot be demonstrated to do so. All results or applications are right here! Not in the future universe, or far past. Why pretend?

Thanks for agreeing with me that science produces testable predictions and practical applications regardless of one's faith or belief in it.

 

[dad]

Thanks for agreeing with me that science produces testable predictions and practical applications regardless of one's faith or belief in it.

Only within the limits of the present state we live in. The bible as predictions too. They go outside your box. The present is sandwiched by the future and the past. Science is just the stuff in between!

 

[Sanguis]

Only within the limits of the present state we live in. The bible as predictions too. They go outside your box. The present is sandwiched by the future and the past. Science is just the stuff in between!

The difference is, many Christians have believed they'll experience the results of those predictions for centuries, even though none of them have, yet, whereas, when science makes a prediction, it goes out and tests that prediction and tries to falsify it. Science produces results, whether they contradict the predictions or not. Christianity makes the predictions, and relies on God to falsify or verify them. Which he hasn't done.

Until He verifies them, is it not logical to take them as falsified, considering they rely on Him verifying them and He hasn't done so?

 

[dad]

The difference is, many Christians have believed they'll experience the results of those predictions for centuries, even though none of them have,

Maybe ones that are clueless. However most prophesies are already fulfilled. Done deal.

yet, whereas, when science makes a prediction, it goes out and tests that prediction and tries to falsify it. Science produces results, whether they contradict the predictions or not.

Science predicts plenty that never happens too. And fails to predict what did happen. Example it never predicted the rings of SN1987a, and did predict a neutron star that never happened. It is within it's limits if it predicts what mixture of fibers will make a softer toilet tissue. It is out of it's depth when it talks of the far future nightmare dark death of all the universe! A place for everything, and science must be put in it's place.

Christianity makes the predictions, and relies on God to falsify or verify them. Which he hasn't done.

Of course He has. Most prophesies of the bible are fulfilled.

Until He verifies them, is it not logical to take them as falsified, considering they rely on Him verifying them and He hasn't done so?

Done deal. He has proven 100% accurate on most, and only a fool would doubt the rest. Not even the devil does that.