|
|
|
|
#2
01-14-2011, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
It is not technology that limits out understanding of that era of the history of the universe, but our cosmological perspective itself. Unless you are familiar with the underpinnings of the Big Bang theory (which you described as "one of several generally accepted theories. Ha. What are these other generally accepted theories?) you really have no place commenting on the state of humanities understanding of the universe. Quick, what role did the discovery of the "red-shift" play in out understanding of the cosmos and our place in it? If you can't answer that quickly and definitively without use of the internet you should STFU, you are out of your depth. Moron.
__________________
I apologize for the prior sig gif. Here are some kittens.
 | ||
|
|
|||
|
#3
01-14-2011, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
LET ME EDIT MY TYPOS!! NOOOO!
__________________
I apologize for the prior sig gif. Here are some kittens.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#4
01-14-2011, 10:46 PM
|
|||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
Like I said -- read more, talk less. Technology is a huge obstacle in understanding whether or not the Big Bang Theory is even viable. And when you sort out the difference between plural and possessive (humanities understanding? Really?), we can delve into red-shift and why you believe you have the right to have me jump through intellectual hoops to earn my chops on a subject that is a footnote to a footnote of the original argument. The Big Bang Theory is not the issue. The technological requirements for proving the viability of the Big Bang Theory is not the issue. The requisite time and advancement necessary to reach these technological requirements is not the issue. The point was that we, as a species, have extremely insufficient information regarding the universe's origins in order to make any conclusive claims regarding whether or not a God was necessary or responsible. I'll save you the time of a breathy and angry response: there is nothing to disagree with. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#5
01-14-2011, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
As I said, TYPOS! NOOO! and yeah, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. You lose. It's obvious who's done more reading in this field.
__________________
I apologize for the prior sig gif. Here are some kittens.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
01-14-2011, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
In the Iroquois creation myth, the world was created on the back of a giant turtle. I like that one.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#8
01-15-2011, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
The world has been destroyed and recreated many times over. Scientist concluded that earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Every 150k years (since about 65 million years ago)the earth burns up and is "recreated". There is no true way to determine if current civilization is actually the FIRST.
Scientist cant explain, however, what or who caused the "big bang". Religion is spiritual to many. It is in your heart. Because you want it there and you want to believe. I personally believe in god (someone/something of intelligent design had to have created existence) but i do not believe in religion. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#9
01-15-2011, 02:10 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
One did something HAVE to create us? Why do you need to believe that? Also... this is the first time I've heard of a theory that conjectures that the earth is destroyed every once in awhile, and is recycled. I have a hard time believing that since we can date things much older than 150 thousand years old in existence now.
__________________
Chtulu Fhtagn
"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" - "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."  | |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
