Scalia

[michigancat]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

This is particularly funny because the atheists almost certainly don't understand what the big bang theory is.

But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!

[michigancat]

This is particularly funny because the atheists almost certainly don't understand what the big bang theory is.

But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!

Classic closeted atheist protesting too much. Come out of the atheist closet, fsd. Your parents will probably still love you.

[sys]

the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

[MakeItRain]

the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.

Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?

[sys]

the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.

Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?

i don't pay a ton of attention to what people believe about those topics or how they reconcile conflicting beliefs.  i also know very little about physics (post newton or so).  so i'm the wrong person for this discussion beyond pointing out that the origin of life on earth is not the same thing, or even related to in any way to the expansion of the universe.

i guess maybe the expansion of the universe may have been a necessary but insufficient condition for life to originate, i really don't know.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

This is particularly funny because the atheists almost certainly don't understand what the big bang theory is.

But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!

Classic closeted atheist protesting too much. Come out of the atheist closet, fsd. Your parents will probably still love you.

Don't reduce religion to a series of Sunday school stories, and then get all butthurt when everyone tells you you're wrong.

Weird meltdown

[michigancat]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

[michigancat]

the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.

Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?

i don't pay a ton of attention to what people believe about those topics or how they reconcile conflicting beliefs.  i also know very little about physics (post newton or so).  so i'm the wrong person for this discussion beyond pointing out that the origin of life on earth is not the same thing, or even related to in any way to the expansion of the universe.

i guess maybe the expansion of the universe may have been a necessary but insufficient condition for life to originate, i really don't know.

They are related in the sense that the big bang/universe expansion ultimately led to the conditions on earth that allowed life to originate (in theory). But yes, obviously the giant explosion did not instantly create life.

[The Big Train]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

No, what I need is for you to convince me why I should believe either seemingly implausible occurrence and you haven't even come close to that. You tell me that the seven day creation story is clearly ridiculous but refuse to engage me when I say that an explosion creating life is just as ridiculous, to me. sys kinda touched on it when he said I might be mistaken about what big bangers believe but then it seems your reply to him confirms that you believe that an explosion managed to create instead of destroy.

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

[Dugout DickStone]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

[The Big Train]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

You obviously don't follow this very closely.  They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.

[michigancat]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?

Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

You obviously don't follow this very closely.  They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.

I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.

[MakeItRain]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?

Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?

More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.

[CHONGS]

What is a big banger?

[Dugout DickStone]

The explosion itself didn't spark life.  No one is saying it did

[The Big Train]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

You obviously don't follow this very closely.  They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.

I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.

All life was just created by a chemical process that started with amino acids.  Without the physical universe that process wouldn't be able to happen.  Believing in something higher can help some people, but not everyone needs that comfort. 

http://earthsky.org/human-world/lhc-creates-liquid-from-big-bang

[gatoveintisiete]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

Mir, I agree with you, for the first time ever I think... 

[michigancat]

You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.

I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.

You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.

Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has

Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.

Holy crap no MIR.  Cmon

Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.

In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?

Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?

More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.

Well, just keep in mind that there were a few billion years and a shitload of randomness between the theoretical big bang and creation of earth and the solar system, and then even more to get from the creation of the solar system to the creation of life on earth. (Theoretically.) It seems like you're ignoring everything that happened over that time and just going straight from the big bang to creation of life.

[MakeItRain]

What is a big banger?

One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?