I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You are welcome. As an act of courtesy for my generous act, would you be willing to read over your post above and then compare it with the one that sparked our initial interaction with each other in this thread? You (and your fellow SJW, Spiramirabilis,) might notice something a little embarrassing. (She might even feel bad herself for starring your above post, thinking it was only her that was aware.)

Certainly not. If you have a point to make, make it frankly without all this smarmy insinuating sneakiness. Don't you have any self-respect?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
So, if science is only reliable on things we can know (you're willing to grant as much) then how did we come to know the things science can reliably know?

You mean like in reference to the scientific fact, not scientific theory, that Astyanax claimed was factual based purely on his knowledge at the time (which he confirmed at time of that post that science told him it was true, therefore it was true)?

Let that sink in. If scientific fact is true just because science says it is, how can scientific fact = true?

Example: I grow up as a Christian and learn about Creationism and accept it as factual for all my childhood, then I reach 18 and start to study Evolution. After a few months I start to feel conflict when considering my new beliefs in regards to my prior beliefs. 5 years after dealing with this conflict, I realise that both Creationism (the "theory", not the Bible itself) and Evolution believe the Earth is older than 5500 years, both agree there is order to the fossil record, both agree that Earth was one big continent, both agree birds came before dinosaurs, or that chimps and humans have similar genes but no common ancestor etc.

So what about the existence of God, my most treasured belief? Well if Creationism better explains his existence (which is never mentioned in Evolution), what makes me more compelled to trust Evolution, regardless if it has more "strong evidence' about the things we DO KNOW than it does about the things we cannot know (God's existence). Therefore, I'll stick with Creationism because to me it seems like the better option.

In other words: scientists are not in the position to discuss anything relating to what we don't know, if creationists are not in a position to discuss anything relating to what we do know. Which is an absurd conclusion to draw.

Does that seriously not ring alarm bells off in your head, if you did indeed read through the whole thread?

Why would it?
Because of the above explanation.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I can't help you with your dilemma. I'm not sure I even understand your dilemma

But, at least - here we are, at long last :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I can't help you with your dilemma. I'm not sure I even understand your dilemma

I can, but I won’t. He’s maxed out his credit here.

I shall simply note, for the record, that the topic of this thread is the Big Bang, not how we know there is water on Europa. I know (as much as an educated layman with a thin physics background can know) about the Big Bang. I did not, however, know how it is known that there is water on Europa.

I do now; he still doesn’t. And that’s the difference between us.

A LITTLE LEARNING

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind.

— Alexander Pope

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
I can't help you with your dilemma. I'm not sure I even understand your dilemma

Which dilemma would that be? That pro-science militants cannot be convinced that "science=real, therefore non-science=fiction" is not true? Not on me, it's on them. (That you appear to be feeling bad on my behalf is on them as well. They can handle it though: "feelings", just like their "conscious awareness" cannot be properly explained by science, so why bother with anything that cannot be known about, right?)

But, at least - here we are, at long last

Yep, you may now proceed being the hater of hate. Don't worry about that contradiction either, I'm sure the others will help you realise that "emotion" isn't real either.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Honest conversations are always better. I've had some amazing conversations with people who see the world very differently from the way I see it. It doesn't have to be about winning or losing. Neither one of us lost anything here except maybe our temper. I didn't lose even that much

As Astyanax just reminded us, this thread is about the Big Bang. Did it or didn't it? We can't know for sure - but, as much as it is about that it's also about how can we know?

I'm no scientist. Not even close. I do love wondering (and knowing) about why things are the way they are. I love nature, biology, space, time - all of it. Science is nothing more than humans trying to understand the universe and our place in that universe. All of that wondering, patience and devotion to a process, hard work and way of thinking has made our lives better

Right now there's a movement to delegitimize science at the very moment we need it most. We're all entitled to our beliefs, but your beliefs have nothing to do with science. They're separate things. If this creates a problem for you - why attack science? It won't help you in your struggle

For anyone who is curious: my point was not really about whether water existed on Europa or whether science ought to be trusted.

It was about revealing an irrational mindset that would put science above reason. There is no knowledge without an observer, just as there is no science without an observer.

Those who need to see the above will.

I am no longer participating, so thanks to all and best of luck finding the truth!

Science, in its true form is a "search for truth". Most early scientist believed in a supreme creator. But science, just like religion/faith, (which is all a science is)... has been infiltrated by doubt. It's not about finding a "truth". It is all about finding "evidence" to validate a non-belief. You can see this in the "social science" where they change the meaning of "truths" to fit a "belief" (theory). Doesn't matter if that belief has historically, ever been socially/civilly accepted. You change the meaning of words here, add doubt there, create new word everywhere...and you have the "new" religion,... Behold! We have "science"! Don't dare ever question! Kinda like a "religion". Because they have papers that comes with "titles", saying "they know". A fool that teaches a fool, only makes another fool.

a reply to: Words

So? Where do you stand? What is your "default"?

My question is? Who was the first "scientists"? I only ask, because there had to be a first "observation" to create a "search for truth"? I'm just saying.

a reply to: murphy22

If you want to join the conversation, please bring something worth discussing. The topic, by the way, is the plausibility of the Big Bang, not 'my problems in science class'.

a reply to: TrueBrit

So basically we got a stack of papers. No real proof.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
For anyone who is curious: my point was not really about whether water existed on Europa or whether science ought to be trusted.

It was about revealing an irrational mindset that would put science above reason. There is no knowledge without an observer, just as there is no science without an observer.

Those who need to see the above will.

I am no longer participating, so thanks to all and best of luck finding the truth!

Science deals in fact not reason, Reason differs depending on the person. I guarantee for example my reasoning skills are different than yours. Science you ask a question do research than develop an hypothesis. Then create a test for your hypothesis to make sure your right. If it fails you create a new hypothesis and retest.

originally posted by: murphy22
My question is? Who was the first "scientists"? I only ask, because there had to be a first "observation" to create a "search for truth"? I'm just saying.

The first person to ask a question and find the answer.