I think people randomly throwing billions of numbers is so stupid, no one know if the earth is 100000 or 50000000000 years old. And as for the Big Bang Theory, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, scientist were pressed with the question “How was the universe created, and when did time start?” And they just pulled an answer out of the sky. Uh…. Well…. There was this, like… Big Explosion!. It went uh…. BOOM!!. And now like.. Humans, the weather cycle, the fact that humans can reproduce, animals, the infinitely complex solar system, and Human anatomy, just exist. There is no evidence for the big bang, Like, there was nothing at all in the universe, and now we have a complex society?. The fact that humans can heal them selves when they get a bruise, and take in tiny oxygen molecules from the air around us and use it to pump blood to different part of our body that serve different purposes. People dont want to admit that there are things that they don’t know, no one can time travel, no one can be sure about anything 1000000000 supposed years ago. But peoples arogance stand in the way of that.
Anyway, I know I kinda ranted there but there is my thoughts
I know this wasn’t really about evolution, but it shows that nothing can be proven, and a lot of stuff in the modern “science” has many holes to it “Like, we were monkey, and now were human” First of all, why are some monkey, still monkeys, were they too stupid to evolve?, And they say we share “DNA” “So do butterfly and banna
Hey guys! I have a question! Based on your religious beliefs, do you believe in evolution? Why or why not?
Personally, I was raised in a scientific (non-relgious too) household. Ice always thought that evolution was just about near proven, but I've had conversations with friends who are Christian who say they don't believe in it. I'm curious to see what other people think.
comments (single view)
You know what, I regret not replying to this post back when it was made.
I like this post because not only can I see the thinking behind these, but those are exact ways of thinking that I use now, just with different knowledge, leading to different results. I could explain about the radiation and Hubble’s law like everyone else here did, but that would be redundant and, to me, missing the point.
To me, this speaks more about how science is taught than science itself. After learning about the Big Bang’s existence, it took 5 years for me to learn what the Big Bang actually meant, and 5 more to learn why the Big Bang is the most plausible theory we have. If I had not kept an interest in science for those 10 years, I would have agreed with this post and moved on with my life. Something similar for evolution too.
There are absolutely still holes in these theories (the Big Bang is such a different environment to the current universe that nothing we have right now works to explain it, and evolution gave rise to genetics, which I was about to say was “an entire sponge on its own”, and then I immediately realized what I was doing), but they’re not as simple as “pulling an answer from the sky”. But the teaching stops there. And I can’t blame whoever decided on that, since you really don’t need much more if you aren’t actively researching it, but it acts as if it’s the full story when it just isn’t.
How do the chromosomes migrate to the metaphase plate? Doesn’t tell me. Why did they choose the Axiom of Power Set, a seemingly random operation, for ZFC? Had to figure it out myself.
I’ll continue writing more tomorrow, but that first sentence made me remember that I was reviewing Biology and that’s what reminded me of this post.
No, actually, let me get to the main point here.
Despite me saying that scientists didn’t just “pull an answer from the sky”, I wouldn’t call you saying that they did as being wrong. You probably didn’t actively look into it, so all you had to base it on was what you were taught, and it absolutely does sound like they just pulled it from the sky in teaching.
But at the same time, why would you actively look into it? My reason isn’t that good, it basically amounts to “having something to waste my time on”, but it’s only by doing that that you see where they got the Big Bang from.
And that’s the dilemma/catch-22/whatever the correct term is, definitely something involving twos. If you don’t actively look into it, you don’t get to see why scientists say a theory is true or its inner workings. But if you do look into it, chances are you’re the scientist whose theories where others will only be taught what is and not why or how.
Alright, that’s enough typing. I think I’m done for today. I still have no idea about the phases of meiosis. I will go do that now.
How would the big bang have happened though. The most fundamental law of physics. “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. If energy cannot be created. How is there energy in the light bulb above your head? (maybe your outside when reading this, but you get my point). What would have caused the big bang. And how did it get there? You can always ask yourself. “What about before that?”. If 1 cause the big bang. What caused 1, well, maybe 2 caused 1 to be created. But where did 2 come from. It’s a never ending loop of “How did something come from nothing”