Tweet
Re: Christmas
As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-
Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
Given that in this short paragraph we have:-
* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?
Originally posted by dembethewarrior
View Post
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-
Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
Given that in this short paragraph we have:-
* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?
Comment