danielsangeo

It be Talk Like a Pirate Day. Watch Captain Freeman's Mind for today, mateys. Arr.

Alyxx: Apologies but I have forgotten about the nick thread. Well, it's still good for people that haven't read that thread.

I haven't said that the Big Bang Theory is absolute.

Then what did you mean by "And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it"?

We see the facts and can, using the data we have, "see" the Big Bang. Just like we can "see" ultraviolet light. And the Big Bang isn't "an idea". It's a theory. It's in that yellow rectangle on that flow chart surrounded by stars.

Actually, we can see it if we have the right tools. Just like we can "see" air, ultraviolet light, germs... And germs are a theory as well.

No, it really isn't. A theory is a set of observable facts. It must have evidence before it can be called a theory. When referring to the Big Bang Theory, it is a scientific theory, not a guess, not an opinion. It has facts backing it up. Clear, observable facts. How is this "prejudiced"? The sun appearing to rise in the eastern sky and setting in the western sky is not an opinion. The rotation of the earth around its axis and around the sun is not an opinion. Plants taking in CO2 and giving off oxygen is not an opinion, all housecats belonging to the same species is not an opinion, my words appearing on your computer screen is not an opinion. These are all facts. And, the fact is, the Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have for the observable facts. And it should be taught as such in school.

Belated introductions, y'all. Very belated, but why not? My name is "danielsangeo". At least, my online name is. Its roots are from my original BBS username "DanielSan" which became my Geocities username and, therefore, my Geocities e-mail address. Once Yahoo took over Geocities, then dropped Geocities, I got a Yahoo e-mail address as "danielsangeo" (to reflect that I was a member of Geocities). I am 33 years old and currently living in Seattle, Washington, USA. I have brown hair, brown eyes and...oh, wait. This isn't that kind of introduction. I am known for my verbose posting on the subject of politics and religion....and, of course, my favorite video games are the Half-Life/Portal series of video games and I eagerly await the release of the Black Mesa mod (and I'm a fairly prolific poster on their forums as well). I have taken to subtitling a bunch of Freeman's Mind episodes which you can find over in the Subtitles section. It is my hope that I can subtitle the missing ones and eventually get a word from Ross on it. "That would make my day. If I do, I'm not going to be gracious about it, either. I'm going to rub people's FACES in it." Oh, wait. Sorry. So, yeah, besides that, I'm attempting to learn computer animation which the hope that, one day, I'll be able to get my work into a Hollywood movie.

I thought it was about teaching creationism versus evolution in schools. And that we were talking, in a sideways way, on the subject of creationism. Or, at least, I was. In conclusion: I want children taught the Big Bang Theory and evolution, not creationism. Why? The former has actual testable evidence. The latter...................doesn't.

Alternatively, say "We don't know yet. There are a lot of hypotheses and speculation, but we just don't know....yet." It is my lifelong goal to educate people about what "theories" are (in this context) and, more importantly, what they aren't. Theories have evidence. If we don't have evidence, they aren't theories.

Oops, I edited my post after seeing your edit. Apologies again.

The way I saw it, it looks like you were advocating children being taught "other theories" that had no evidence. You produced this list of "theories" for the "origin of the universe", some of which aren't theories at all (they have no evidence for them) and others that weren't about the origin of the universe. I was under the impression that you wanted children be taught these as "equally valid" to the theory that has evidence: The Big Bang. And this theory ("The Big Bang Theory") also encompasses what happened prior to expansion...though we're still working on getting and understanding the evidence of what happened during Planck Time. If that's not what you're doing, I apologize, but I was speaking all this time on what I want children to be taught.

Actually, it's quite on topic. I think that we should teach children in school that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. At least, if you're going to teach something that has no evidence, preface it as such. Actually, for gravity, we do have evidence that gravity is causing orbits, not 'swinging arms around'. We knew about gravity before Newton. Newton just codified it into a law. Long story short (too late!): I want children taught that which has evidence, not that which doesn't have evidence. Capisce?

1. However, if that info has evidence for it... 2. What evidence is there for gravity? Um.....things falling to the ground, which has been observed billions of times? Darwin's evolution? Read up on it. There's a lot more than you think. And Einstein had the math to back him up. 3. No, those are NOT theories. Theories are explanations and bodies of principles for available empirical data about observations that can be tested. For example, the "heliocentric theory" which states that the Earth revolves around the sun. This has been observed. Theories MUST be well-supported by evidence. The word you're looking for is "speculation", "conjecture", "supposition", or "guess". These things that are listed as "theories" are mislabeled. The Big Bang is about the origin of the universe. Our world (the Earth) came later. And we have theories about how that happened, too. And we have theories on how life formed on this planet as well as how it evolved once it formed. None of this precludes a creator deity or intelligent force. But then again, the existence of a creator deity or intelligent force also does not preclude a 'higher' creator deity or intelligent force to create that creator deity or intelligent force. And one 'higher' than that. And one 'higher' than that. That's the problem with speculations, conjectures, suppositions, or guesses. If you don't have evidence for it, you can really just say anything. And that's not good to teach in schools. I do not agree that something illogical happened "before" the Big Bang.

1. For example? 2. Actually, Darwin, Newton, and Einstein DID have evidence for their assertions. 3. Some of these aren't universe originating theories (Accretion Theory). Others aren't even theories (Oscillating Universe Theory). None of the origin "theories" listed here have evidence for them. 4. I think you're mistaken about the Big Bang Theory. Time began when the Big Bang happened (some 10^-43 seconds after time began, the universe began to expand). As for what caused the Big Bang, no one knows and there's no evidence to suggest that there's any supernatural force or anything other than "it happened". We're still trying to find out but not knowing doesn't mean that it's illogical. We just don't know the logic behind it....yet. An easy way to think about the "beginning of time" and how the phrase "before the Big Bang" is, itself, gibberish, is this: "Which direction is north of the north pole?"

Apologies for the big posting that follows. But that's just your opinion. I know others share it, including me, but others may not. No, it's not an opinion. That's a fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence. Firstly, no one teaches that rain is "God crying", if you think that over 95% of people in this world are stupid enough to believe that, you're sadly mistaken. You miss my point. Creationism and "God crying" are identical in amount of evidence. If someone believes that "God is crying" when it rains, it's no more "stupid" than a belief in a deity at all, is it? I didn't say that. There's just no evidence of a god. Which ones have evidence for them? Incorrect. There is a theory for the beginning of the universe. It's called "The Big Bang Theory". Surely you've heard of it. So? Just because ultraviolet rays were not visible or in any way felt by humans in their life time 100 years ago, they didn''t exist. Yet you can detect such. For example? I'll stick to the ones that have evidence, thank you. Why not? And they had evidence to back up their assertions. Not quite. The world came into existence long after the Big Bang. I'm sorry, what makes it illogical? But no info is worse.

The Big Bang Theory is the best theory we have to date for the evidence we see. Creationism is not a valid theory at all. In fact, it's not a theory at all. There's absolutely no evidence for it. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're saying here. Not really. Pick the one that has the preponderance of the evidence. So, because we can't currently explain it, therefore, it has to be a creator deity? C'mon. If you didn't know how rain formed, does that mean that all hypotheses about how it forms are valid including "God crying"? And we should teach our children that thunder is "God bowling" with equal validity as what lightning is? No, if you're going to teach this kind of thing (something other than what is in evidence) in school, do it in a class that it's meant for, such as a "comparative religions" class. Not in science.

Nacho Cheesier.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. It's not an opinion, though. One side uses evidence and there is a lot of it (Big Bang Theory). The other side....well....has a story with no evidence whatsoever (Creationism). One only needs to research both subjects to see that there's absolutely no evidence of creationism and loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. There is debate, but it's over whether a camera works by light being exposed on a surface that 'copies' the photo to a negative or to a memory card...............or an imp living in the camera painting the pictures. We have evidence on how a camera works. We don't have evidence of a picture painting imp. We have evidence on how the Big Bang happened. We don't have evidence of a creator deity.

I don't think there is any controversy at all regarding the teaching of the origin of the universe (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way). Is there a controversy over who built the pyramids? How about a controversy over whether there's four elements (air, water, fire, earth) or over 100 (including gold and mercury)? Or perhaps a controversy over whether the planets and sun revolve around the Earth? Or whether it's turtles all the way down? That's the thing I'm trying to point out here. There is no controversy. There is that which is in evidence and there is that which isn't in evidence. I do not want children being taught that the moon landing may have been faked or that lead can be turned into gold by the process of alchemy. There is no controversy here.

So, hey, found out a new workflow which makes subtitling so much easier (for me)....if you have purchased Sony Vegas. 1. Type up subtitles placing each subtitle in a line. Save as a TXT file. 2. In Sony Vegas, Import > Closed Captioning and select TXT file. 3. Move imported markers to the beginning of each spoken line. 4. If you want the subtitle to disappear (for example, if Gordon is shooting things but not saying anything as he does in 10.5 here), go to the end of the line and press "C" and insert {EDM} as the subtitle. This will tell Vegas to turn off the caption at that point in time. 5. Once all markers are placed (including any {EDM}s), export as a Youtube SRT. 6. In Subtitles Workshop, import the SRT and just clean up the file (Vegas will try to insert line breaks which don't look too pretty for me). Whatever, let's attach this subtitle file. Hoogasaka hoogasaka hoo! ...Oh shit, oh shit, oh shi--!

@Kaweebo: Not everyone here goes to the Black Mesa Forums (though I go to both so you should recognize my name). @Everyone else: Stides is a troll that sometimes posts to the Black Mesa Forums whose only subject wherever he/she posts is that "Black Mesa will not be completed".

There is no such assertion. Actually, check this out (since this is what I was responding to: I can't even tell you how hard I LOL'd at that. I'm not sure why you think that's impossible. The universe creating itself from nothing seems about as likely as god doing the same then creating our universe. I'm always disappointed at the superiority religious and non-religious people feel over each other, as if they've somehow already proved or disproved the existence of god and billions of other people are just ignorant. See, alphabetagamma was musing about how one side (the non-religious "universe creating itself from nothing") has equal likelihood as the other side (the religious "god doing the same then creating our universe"). I was asking where the non-religious "universe creating itself from nothing" came from because I haven't heard that assertion made on the non-religious side.

But that's not what I asked. There is this assertion that science says that the universe came from nothing, not what an alleged "God" allegedly did. I was speaking on the science front, not the religion front.

But that raises the question of what was before the beginning of our universe. The question that you raised is, actually, a gibberish question. I know it sounds reasonable but it really isn't. Think of it this way: What is north of the north pole? How would you answer this question? Also, why is there this assertion that the universe came from "nothing"?