No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning.

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,642
18,616
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Being capable of admitting error, and adjusting to new findings, is what makes science superior to every other form of knowledge development ever.

Even the stalest, most falsified scientific hypothesis is superior to an untestable assertion.
And I think that is what people like myself are simply asking. When we're in a period where we have a theory for (insert theory) and we believe this theory to be true. Let's be humble enough to leave room for us to be wrong. Rather than brow beating folks (like Bill Nye) and talking down to them like if they don't believe this theory as fact. They are some sort of knuckle dragger that drools out the side of their mouth. Because as time has proven on a lot of things. We are very, very capable of being wrong. Even the smartest among us.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,145
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
And I think that is what people like myself are simply asking. When we're in a period where we have a theory for (insert theory) and we believe this theory to be true. Let's be humble enough to leave room for us to be wrong. Rather than brow beating folks (like Bill Nye) and talking down to them like if they don't believe this theory as fact. They are some sort of knuckle dragger that drools out the side of their mouth. Because as time has proven on a lot of things. We are very, very capable of being wrong. Even the smartest among us.
There is a difference between being capable of admitting error (which is part and parcel of science), and admitting that all viewpoints are worthy (which is the opposite of what science does)

Assertions without evidence are appropriately dismissed.

I don't really keep up with the doings of celebrities like Bill Nye to know what you are referring to here.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,642
18,616
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
There is a difference between being capable of admitting error (which is part and parcel of science), and admitting that all viewpoints are worthy (which is the opposite of what science does)

Assertions without evidence are appropriately dismissed.

I don't really keep up with the doings of celebrities like Bill Nye to know what you are referring to here.
If you're interested go to youtube and watch some of his debates or his "round table discussions" he's been involved in over the last ten years. He's an arrogant dbag. Humility would do him some good.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,644
12,568
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
If you're interested go to youtube and watch some of his debates or his "round table discussions" he's been involved in over the last ten years. He's an arrogant dbag. Humility would do him some good.
and one of the most well meaning humans on the planet

he just got sick of dealing with idiots saying idiotic things

no the earth isn't 6,000 years old, or ten thousand

no, people and dinosaurs didn't live together

yes, dinosaurs are real

no, there was no worldwide flood and the grand canyon was not created in a matter of days when the flood waters drained

we know all of this stuff, the science is crystal clear and yet he get's asked and berated about this garbage all the time. So after multiple decades he got fed up and is now "arrogant"

ok
 

bama579

Hall of Fame
Jan 15, 2005
5,416
889
137
The Chukker or Archibalds
that's because the Science literate have to dumb it down for a certain percentage of the population. It has to be presented as fact because as soon as you leave a crack the unscrupulous, the deluded by bronze age fairy tails and others with an agenda will pounce. Even Gravity is a Theory, but if you step off your second story balcony you are going to fall and probably get hurt.
More info on "bronze age fairy tails" please. :wink:
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,642
18,616
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
and one of the most well meaning humans on the planet

he just got sick of dealing with idiots saying idiotic things

no the earth isn't 6,000 years old, or ten thousand

no, people and dinosaurs didn't live together

yes, dinosaurs are real

no, there was no worldwide flood and the grand canyon was not created in a matter of days when the flood waters drained

we know all of this stuff, the science is crystal clear and yet he get's asked and berated about this garbage all the time. So after multiple decades he got fed up and is now "arrogant"

ok

So Bill is such a weak minded person that he allows other people to live rent free in his head and allows them to control how he acts towards others?

ok
 

AV8N

1st Team
Sep 18, 2013
751
0
35
I was watching a BBC film about Stephen Hawking recently that showed how the popular theory at the time asserted that the universe had no beginning or end. Interestingly, the professor who preached this rebuked Hawking for proposing the big bang because he though such a theory opened the door to divine creation (i.e., perhaps something caused the bang).
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,863
35,177
362
Mountainous Northern California
I was watching a BBC film about Stephen Hawking recently that showed how the popular theory at the time asserted that the universe had no beginning or end. Interestingly, the professor who preached this rebuked Hawking for proposing the big bang because he though such a theory opened the door to divine creation (i.e., perhaps something caused the bang).
Not Hawking. It was George Lemaître .

Some related info here: http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
So Bill is such a weak minded person that he allows other people to live rent free in his head and allows them to control how he acts towards others?

ok
Let me preface this with: I do not know Bill Nye. I have never met the man, nor do I think I will get the chance.

If I were to guess, Bill Nye's beef isn't so much with Ken Ham or people like him being actively ignorant of established facts and proof. I would imagine it is more with the fact that there are a good number of people, like Ken Ham, who willfully try and encourage others to be actively ignorant as well. Creating things like the Creationist Museum in KY which is aimed at children and intentionally distort the facts as well as attempts to discourage any gathering of evidence outside the bible is not a good thing if we want to be able to compete as a society. However, let me unequivocally state that it is in their right as citizens to believe whatever their hearts desire.

I think this gets to the crux of the issue. When one side attempts to base its arguments on the gathering of measurable facts and information and the other side claims that through interpretation of a 2000 year old text they know for a fact that scientific theory is wrong, there is going to be friction. It isn't the fact that Bill Nye knows that he is right and the other guy is wrong. Its that at least Bill Nye is willing to admit there is a possibility he is wrong. Whereas the guy without any evidence, nor any real rigor other than reading and study of a 2000 year old text, won't even entertain the slightest possibility that he may not have it 100% correct. What is the old saying? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ken Ham, and people like him would rather look at it like this. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is proof that God made that duck.

You call trying to set the record straight, as straight as it can be set given the current body of scientific knowledge, weak minded because he is tired of arguing with fools. I call him heroic because at least he is attempting to keep the next generation of people from turning out like Ken Ham.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,644
12,568
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Let me preface this with: I do not know Bill Nye. I have never met the man, nor do I think I will get the chance.

If I were to guess, Bill Nye's beef isn't so much with Ken Ham or people like him being actively ignorant of established facts and proof. I would imagine it is more with the fact that there are a good number of people, like Ken Ham, who willfully try and encourage others to be actively ignorant as well. Creating things like the Creationist Museum in KY which is aimed at children and intentionally distort the facts as well as attempts to discourage any gathering of evidence outside the bible is not a good thing if we want to be able to compete as a society. However, let me unequivocally state that it is in their right as citizens to believe whatever their hearts desire.

I think this gets to the crux of the issue. When one side attempts to base its arguments on the gathering of measurable facts and information and the other side claims that through interpretation of a 2000 year old text they know for a fact that scientific theory is wrong, there is going to be friction. It isn't the fact that Bill Nye knows that he is right and the other guy is wrong. Its that at least Bill Nye is willing to admit there is a possibility he is wrong. Whereas the guy without any evidence, nor any real rigor other than reading and study of a 2000 year old text, won't even entertain the slightest possibility that he may not have it 100% correct. What is the old saying? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ken Ham, and people like him would rather look at it like this. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is proof that God made that duck.

You call trying to set the record straight, as straight as it can be set given the current body of scientific knowledge, weak minded because he is tired of arguing with fools. I call him heroic because at least he is attempting to keep the next generation of people from turning out like Ken Ham.
THIS^^^
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,642
18,616
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Let me preface this with: I do not know Bill Nye. I have never met the man, nor do I think I will get the chance.

If I were to guess, Bill Nye's beef isn't so much with Ken Ham or people like him being actively ignorant of established facts and proof. I would imagine it is more with the fact that there are a good number of people, like Ken Ham, who willfully try and encourage others to be actively ignorant as well. Creating things like the Creationist Museum in KY which is aimed at children and intentionally distort the facts as well as attempts to discourage any gathering of evidence outside the bible is not a good thing if we want to be able to compete as a society. However, let me unequivocally state that it is in their right as citizens to believe whatever their hearts desire.

I think this gets to the crux of the issue. When one side attempts to base its arguments on the gathering of measurable facts and information and the other side claims that through interpretation of a 2000 year old text they know for a fact that scientific theory is wrong, there is going to be friction. It isn't the fact that Bill Nye knows that he is right and the other guy is wrong. Its that at least Bill Nye is willing to admit there is a possibility he is wrong. Whereas the guy without any evidence, nor any real rigor other than reading and study of a 2000 year old text, won't even entertain the slightest possibility that he may not have it 100% correct. What is the old saying? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ken Ham, and people like him would rather look at it like this. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is proof that God made that duck.

You call trying to set the record straight, as straight as it can be set given the current body of scientific knowledge, weak minded because he is tired of arguing with fools. I call him heroic because at least he is attempting to keep the next generation of people from turning out like Ken Ham.
For the record Ken Ham is a nut job. Not a big fan of his whatsoever.

I've watched A LOT of debates in which Bill Nye and Ken Ham have been apart of. Neither has ever even hinted that they could be wrong. If so I missed it. I watched Nye write out a formula to "prove" he was right that had assumed constants with values assigned to them that had about as much credibility as me drawing numbers out of a hat. If he wants my respect (which he couldn't care less if died tomorrow) he would present his evidence and say "this is what I believe and why" without prancing it around like there's no way it could be wrong. Both Ham and Nye do this. It's arrogance and thinking very highly of oneself at its best.
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
For the record Ken Ham is a nut job. Not a big fan of his whatsoever.

I've watched A LOT of debates in which Bill Nye and Ken Ham have been apart of. Neither has ever even hinted that they could be wrong. If so I missed it. I watched Nye write out a formula to "prove" he was right that had assumed constants with values assigned to them that had about as much credibility as me drawing numbers out of a hat. If he wants my respect (which he couldn't care less if died tomorrow) he would present his evidence and say "this is what I believe and why" without prancing it around like there's no way it could be wrong. Both Ham and Nye do this. It's arrogance and thinking very highly of oneself at its best.
Here is an excerpt of a transcript of the Nye vs. Ham debate located on this site: http://www.youngearth.org/index.php...m/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

Youngearth.org said:
5. What if anything would ever change your mind?

Ham: Well the answer to that question is, I'm a Christian. And as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly through his Word and shown himself in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the Word of God. I admit that that's where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that, and you can make predictions based on that; you can check the prophecies in the Bible, you can check the statements in Genesis, you can check that and I did a little bit of that tonight, but I can’t ultimately prove that to you. All I can do is to say to someone, look if the Bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the Word of God and that's what it claims, then check it out. The Bible says if you come to God believing that He is, He will reveal himself to you and you will know; as Christian’s we can say we know. And so, as far as the word of God is concerned, no one's ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true.

But I do want to make a distinction here, and for Bill’s sake: we build models based upon the Bible. And those models are always subject to change. The fact of Noah's flood is not subject to change, but the model of how the flood occurred is subject to change. Because we observe in the current world, and we are able to come up with many different ways that this could have happened, or that could have happened, and that is scientific discovery. That's part of what it's all about.

So, The bottom line is that as a Christian I have a foundation, but as a Christian I would ask Bill a question, "What would change your mind?” I mean, you said , even if you came to faith, you’d never give up on believing in billions of years, if I heard you correctly, you said something like that recently, so that would be my question for Bill.

Nye: We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately.

The question I have for you though, fundamentally, in front of the washing??, Mr. Ham, it's What can you prove? What you have done tonight has spent all of the time coming up with explanations about the past. What can you really predict? What can you really prove in a conventional scientific-- or in a conventional, “I have an idea that makes a prediction, and it comes out the way I see it.” This is this very troubling to me.
Nye actually gives an example of what would change his world view. Ham dodges and pivots. I didn't mean to turn this into a Ham vs. Nye conversation, but unless I am interpreting Nye's words incorrectly, the most publicized debate between these two has an excellent example of him explaining that he is willing to change his mind. All it would require is a little incontrovertible truth.
 

New Posts

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.