RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > The RadioReference Tavern > Religion


Religion - Dog is my copilot. My karma ran over your dogma

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2018, 5:25 PM
Jimru's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Henrico County, VA
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slicerwizard View Post
Frankly, you're both idiots and not worth anyone's precious time.

ZZ has laid out the reasons quite clearly, no need for me to repeat it.

Erm, chiming in with personal insults wasn’t necessary.
__________________
Addicted to all things radio for nearly 50 years, and proud of it!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2018, 9:00 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
Take the word "God" out of it, and perhaps the need for the conversation ceases to exist. My objection is simply that people use religious beliefs to base law upon, but for those who don't follow that particular religion, the "moral authority" to create law doesn't exist.

Take my Sharia law example... Do YOU want to have to practice it?
While on the surface your argument has validity, consider the staunch environmentalist who would promote laws to govern what cars we can drive or or whether we can use our fireplace, or the animal rights crowd who would limit what we can or can't eat or the anti-smoking groups who have successfully enacted laws governing where we can smoke?

I think it's safe to say that none of the above is normally associated with having any religious basis but the end result is that when laws relating to the above are passed we're subject to another's version of morality.

However, let's play "devil's advocate" and consider this from another view. I suspect we could sift through all of the laws on the books and find some sort or religious connection. (I think I could make a compelling connection between all of the above and Christianity) Do we have no laws then?

Getting back to your example of Sharia Law: Taken as a whole, I'd say no. However, I suspect that there are some basic principles (or at least a few similarities) of Sharia Law with which I would agree. It's just a matter of putting any prejudices aside and looking at each topic on it's face.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2018, 9:01 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimru View Post
Erm, chiming in with personal insults wasn’t necessary.
Too true. - Don't have to agree with each other but no reason not to be civil.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2018, 9:20 PM
Jimru's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Henrico County, VA
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Too true. - Don't have to agree with each other but no reason not to be civil.

I recognize that we let our emotions get the best of us here in The Tavern. I’ve done it myself enough times, but I work hard to try and avoid it.

After all, we’re only “human beans”.!
__________________
Addicted to all things radio for nearly 50 years, and proud of it!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2018, 9:33 PM
ridgescan's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco, Ca.
Posts: 4,245
Default

Right on Jim
__________________
BC785D to Diamond D130J @50'
IcomR71A, RS DX-160 to Wellbrook loop @50'
IcomR75,
'54 SX-88 #127 to 100' endfed wire/9:1 trans. @40'
RS Pro 2066 in truck to Larsen Tribander
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2018, 3:42 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
While on the surface your argument has validity, consider the staunch environmentalist who would promote laws to govern what cars we can drive or or whether we can use our fireplace, or the animal rights crowd who would limit what we can or can't eat or the anti-smoking groups who have successfully enacted laws governing where we can smoke?
Not necessarily good analogies. In the case of smoking, for example, it's not morality that drives it, it's science. And unlike religion, science is true whether you believe it or not. Smoking kills people, and second hand smoke kills people. In fact, it's ironic that you used that one... My mother smoked, but it was my dad who died of lung cancer.

Same with environmental laws. In spite of what the conservative right will tell you, environmental law is based on science. Just don't mistake people's emotions about it for religious fervor. Yeah, some people get carried away, but the bottom line is, it's science driving these things, not faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
However, let's play "devil's advocate" and consider this from another view. I suspect we could sift through all of the laws on the books and find some sort or religious connection. (I think I could make a compelling connection between all of the above and Christianity) Do we have no laws then?
Just because the basis of a law can be found in religious texts does not automatically mean it has a religious origin. Take some of the ten commandments, for example. Thou shalt not steal? Ok, God said it, but stealing is just inherently wrong with or without God's say so. Same with murder.

But others, not so much. The first commandment might offend members of a polytheistic religion, for example. Good thing that one isn't codified into US law, but it's also a good thing the two I mentioned above, are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Getting back to your example of Sharia Law: Taken as a whole, I'd say no. However, I suspect that there are some basic principles (or at least a few similarities) of Sharia Law with which I would agree. It's just a matter of putting any prejudices aside and looking at each topic on it's face.
Cherry picking elements of Sharia law and fitting them into Christian law does not make it Sharia law. There are elements of religious law that evolved out of good common sense that existed at the time. Prohibitions against eating certain types of meat, for example, are rooted in the parasites that meat carried. Science, if you will...

But it's generally safe now to eat pigs without getting trichinosis, so here you have a religious edict basically rooted in science that's no longer true which is a good thing. I happen to quite like bacon.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2018, 6:01 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 890
Default

Unfortunately, science isn't always true. There are a number of examples where science has "changed it's tune" over the years. I can think of a number of foods or behaviors that science once said were bad for us but now suggests otherwise. (The inverse has happened as well) Don't mistake this for me suggesting that we must discount everything to do with science. In no way am I implying that. However, I maintain a healthy level of skepticism of what is advanced as "science" these days because I'm well aware of human error and personal and political agenda. Also, it's a little disingenuous to try maintain a distinction between "environmental emotionalism" and religious fervor. A zealot is a zealot. The difference being the alter at which your worship.

"Just because the basis of a law can be found in religious texts does not automatically mean it has a religious origin."

Not in every case, no. But, nor can it be proven that it isn't. Seems like a civilization/religion timeline. Which came first? - A chicken and egg scenario.

"Take some of the ten commandments, for example. Thou shalt not steal? Ok, God said it, but stealing is just inherently wrong with or without God's say so. Same with murder. But others, not so much. The first commandment might offend members of a polytheistic religion, for example. Good thing that one isn't codified into US law, but it's also a good thing the two I mentioned above, are."

Well, we're in agreement that stealing and murder are both wrong. But inherently wrong? For you and me, yes. But there are amoral people who would claim otherwise. Right and wrong is either relative or absolute. If it is the latter, then who is to proclaim it absolute?

"Cherry picking elements of Sharia law and fitting them into Christian law does not make it Sharia law."

I thought I was clear on that. I just said there might be some things that I agreed with just as you stated above that it was a good thing that "thou shalt not steal" was codified into U.S. law.


"There are elements of religious law that evolved out of good common sense that existed at the time. Prohibitions against eating certain types of meat, for example, are rooted in the parasites that meat carried. Science, if you will...

But it's generally safe now to eat pigs without getting trichinosis, so here you have a religious edict basically rooted in science that's no longer true which is a good thing. I happen to quite like bacon."

That is an interesting observation that you made and I'm in complete agreement with you as to the reason behind it. However, which do you think came first, the religious prohibition or the scientific knowledge of why certain animals should be eaten? I might postulate that any or all of the commands of God have just yet to be proven scientifically. Because as you stated: " it's not morality that drives it, it's science."
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 02-06-2018, 6:09 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimru View Post
Erm, chiming in with personal insults wasn’t necessary.
I disagree. I was responding to these comments:

You obviously know nothing about the subject.

Perhaps very deep down they know they are wrong.


The persons making those comments were attacking others who had done nothing wrong. The comments are ignorant. They deserve condemnation.

And you chiming in 2+ weeks later? Seriously?
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 6:05 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Unfortunately, science isn't always true. There are a number of examples where science has "changed it's tune" over the years.
Science is ALWAYS true. What we think we know about science isn't always true, but the whole point of the exercise is to learn more and make our understanding better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
However, I maintain a healthy level of skepticism of what is advanced as "science" these days because I'm well aware of human error and personal and political agenda.
That's a perfectly wise thing to do. There's plenty of garbage passed off as science that just isn't. But one mustn't treat all science as suspect. You're sitting there on the internet because science works, not because of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Not in every case, no. But, nor can it be proven that it isn't. Seems like a civilization/religion timeline. Which came first? - A chicken and egg scenario.
The egg came first. Whatever it was that laid the egg was not quite a chicken yet. =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Well, we're in agreement that stealing and murder are both wrong. But inherently wrong? For you and me, yes. But there are amoral people who would claim otherwise.
But those people are broken, and thus are abberations. Let's not talk about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
However, which do you think came first, the religious prohibition or the scientific knowledge of why certain animals should be eaten?
The religious prohibition. Back then, people ate pigs, then got chronically ill. They didn't understand why, so blamed God.

Now we understand why people got sick eating pigs, so we can leave God out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
I might postulate that any or all of the commands of God have just yet to be proven scientifically. Because as you stated: " it's not morality that drives it, it's science."
But that doesn't make it science, and that's not even close to what science is.

Try postulating that God's commands are proven to be the word of God. Develop some experiments to prove your postulation, and then watch as others do your experiments and get the same results.

Do that, and THEN you can talk about God and science in the same sentence.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2018, 12:42 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 890
Default

Fair enough. What is often represented as scientific proof or evidence isn't always true.

"The religious prohibition. Back then, people ate pigs, then got chronically ill. They didn't understand why, so blamed God.

Now we understand why people got sick eating pigs, so we can leave God out of it."

I don't follow your logic here. You agreed that the religious prohibition came first. So we now understand the reason behind the prohibition. That doesn't lessen the value or credibility of the source or prohibition. It corroborates it. If you were to tell your 4 year old child not to smoke because it's unhealthy and he or she grows up to be come a medical professional and learns the detailed effects of the damage that smoking does to the body, does that make you wrong or prove you don't exist?

"But that doesn't make it science, and that's not even close to what science is.

Try postulating that God's commands are proven to be the word of God. Develop some experiments to prove your postulation, and then watch as others do your experiments and get the same results. "

Do that, and THEN you can talk about God and science in the same sentence."

I never stated that it was "science" but rather that some could have the possibility to be proven later, much like the prohibition on eating certain food has a real practical basis that we now understand.

Proof isn't always given in scientific terms. While it is often empirical, it can also be anecdotal or logical. While one type might support or disprove another, the lack of one doesn't disprove another. . I'm pretty sure if fifty people who were in a theater with me and observed me falsely yell FIRE, FIRE!, a judge would consider that enough evidence to convict me of inciting a riot. Sure, if it had been recorded, there would be additional 'scientific" proof but the lack of a recording isn't proof that I'm not guilty, Is there scientific proof that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States? I don't think so. However, we have plenty of documents that can be compiled to present a pretty foolproof case.

I'm well aware of the scientific method. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that something doesn't exist because we don't have the ability to observe, reproduce or measure it. There are plenty of phenomena that the "scientific community" doesn't understand yet still accept. I stand by my claim that the reason that God doesn't fall in to this category is more emotional than logical.
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2018, 2:56 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
I don't follow your logic here. You agreed that the religious prohibition came first. So we now understand the reason behind the prohibition. That doesn't lessen the value or credibility of the source or prohibition. It corroborates it.
Science agrees with the need for the prohibion against eating pigs, but doesn't validate any religious aspect of it. It was merely something that made sense to people, so it was incorporated into religion. That is a man-made association, not a devine one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post

I never stated that it was "science" but rather that some could have the possibility to be proven later, much like the prohibition on eating certain food has a real practical basis that we now understand.
I think you're reading too much into the success of the pork thing. Religion has many useful life lessons, some of which will turn out to have scientific explanations. But that's merely because "mother nature" knows everything, we only know a little bit. But sometimes we get it right. We could spend all day talking about what region has gotten wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
Proof isn't always given in scientific terms. While it is often empirical, it can also be anecdotal or logical.
You seem unclear on the meanings of proof vs. evidence. Proof is neither empirical nor anecdotal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
I'm well aware of the scientific method. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that something doesn't exist because we don't have the ability to observe, reproduce or measure it. There are plenty of phenomena that the "scientific community" doesn't understand yet still accept..
There is plenty that we hadn't been able to see or reproduce, that turns into scientific reality. James Clerk Maxwell derived the equations that predicted electromagnetic radiation 50 years before we had the ability to generate and detect them.

There is no known mathematical equation predicting God, there is no physical proof of God, there is no empirical evidence of God. Only anecdotal. While anecdotal evidence is acceptable in a court of law, it alone is NOT acceptable in any scientific endeavor looking to "prove" something.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is believing in something because you want to. It doesn't need any objective reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
I stand by my claim that the reason that God doesn't fall in to this category is more emotional than logical.
Believe what you want. I really truly have no objection. Just keep your religion out of our laws. That's all I ask.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2018, 9:02 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bharvey2 View Post
There are plenty of phenomena that the "scientific community" doesn't understand yet still accept. I stand by my claim that the reason that God doesn't fall in to this category is more emotional than logical.
A belief in God is nothing but emotional. There is no logic in it. Well, except for "logic" like "This thing happened. We can't explain it. Therefore God did it."

When it comes to God, it's all faith and no evidence.


Quote:
Is there scientific proof that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States?
I smell a false equivalence. So if we believe that Lincoln was the prez, should we be equally willing to believe a claim that a hypnotoad was also the prez for a while? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but when it comes to God, we get a Bible that can't even get the age of the Earth right...
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2018, 12:15 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slicerwizard View Post
A belief in God is nothing but emotional. There is no logic in it. Well, except for "logic" like "This thing happened. We can't explain it. Therefore God did it."

When it comes to God, it's all faith and no evidence..
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said it quite nicely:

"...if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller..."
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2018, 8:20 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sauk Centre, Minnesota
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slicerwizard View Post
A belief in God is nothing but emotional. There is no logic in it. Well, except for "logic" like "This thing happened. We can't explain it. Therefore God did it."

When it comes to God, it's all faith and no evidence
Atheism is the same way
There are still big holes in the Big Bang theory they're still trying to prove
It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as a Christian
__________________
KE0NXO - Uniden BCD996P2, Yaesu FTM-400xdr, Yaesu FT-70dr, Yaesu HRI-200 node
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2018, 8:40 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sauk Centre, Minnesota
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
Where I draw the line and bristle is the idea that someone else's belief in God will impact laws that I am subject to.

That offends me, every bit as much as enacting Sharia law would offend a Christian. It's absolutely no different.


Your argument is not valid
This country was founded by Christians. It began with the pilgrims who were fleeing a tyrant. Eventually, 150 yrs later, they made war upon that tyrant and won that right to create a separate government. The principles of that government came from their Christian background.

This country was NOT founded upon immigration, as is popular belief, but upon the right to practice Christianity. Immigration happened afterwards.

I respect what you believe, but there is no way I'm going to let some Muslim or Hindu force their law upon me because we won that right 235 yrs ago

You have the right to believe what you will, but I will fight to make sure our Christian principles are followed
If you cannot handle that than you and all those Muslims can move back to where y'all came from. Because this is America, a nation built under God
__________________
KE0NXO - Uniden BCD996P2, Yaesu FTM-400xdr, Yaesu FT-70dr, Yaesu HRI-200 node
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2018, 2:44 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
Atheism is the same way
There are still big holes in the Big Bang theory they're still trying to prove
It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as a Christian
At least scientists are working on improving our knowledge of the universe. And they don't say stupid stuff like "Gays are teh eevil because teh Universe said so."


Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
You have the right to believe what you will, but I will fight to make sure our Christian principles are followed
And we will fight your fairy tales.


Quote:
If you cannot handle that than you and all those Muslims can move back to where y'all came from.
We came from here. You can leave any time.


Quote:
Because this is America, a nation built under God
Built under a fairy tale. Got it.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2018, 2:56 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
Your argument is not valid
This country was founded by Christians. It began with the pilgrims who were fleeing a tyrant. Eventually, 150 yrs later, they made war upon that tyrant and won that right to create a separate government. The principles of that government came from their Christian background.

This country was NOT founded upon immigration, as is popular belief, but upon the right to practice Christianity. Immigration happened afterwards.

I respect what you believe, but there is no way I'm going to let some Muslim or Hindu force their law upon me because we won that right 235 yrs ago

You have the right to believe what you will, but I will fight to make sure our Christian principles are followed
If you cannot handle that than you and all those Muslims can move back to where y'all came from. Because this is America, a nation built under God
I was interested to see if the first settlers from Europe were Christians and yes that's correct in respect to the fact that Christianity was the major religion in Europe at that time.

The reasons for setting up colonies is a different matter in respect to the companies behind them such as the Virginia Company and the Plymouth company.These companies were created with the sole purpose of reaping benefits for the shareholders (1607).

Regarding following a religion,that is a personal matter as are other belief systems and no one should be forced to comply otherwise it becomes persecution and if you like a sharia style society or Beth din society etc.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:01 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
Your argument is not valid
This country was founded by Christians.
The Constitution does not mention a Christian God once, anywhere.

From the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
It began with the pilgrims who were fleeing a tyrant. Eventually, 150 yrs later, they made war upon that tyrant and won that right to create a separate government. The principles of that government came from their Christian background.
The principle was that the new government would not favor or impede any religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
This country was NOT founded upon immigration, as is popular belief, but upon the right to practice Christianity. Immigration happened afterwards.
I wonder how the native Americans feel about that point of view. My money says they disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
I respect what you believe, but there is no way I'm going to let some Muslim or Hindu force their law upon me because we won that right 235 yrs ago
That's right. And 235 years ago, I won the right to keep you from imposing YOUR religious will upon me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
You have the right to believe what you will, but I will fight to make sure our Christian principles are followed
What Christian principles? Please show me in the constitution where it says we're a Christian nation. Go on... I'll wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
If you cannot handle that than you and all those Muslims can move back to where y'all came from.
I was born here. Now what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
Because this is America, a nation built under God
Iran is a theocracy. Not the U.S. Perhaps you can find an actual Christian theocracy to move to.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.

Last edited by zz0468; 02-16-2018 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:10 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Posts: 5,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
Atheism is the same way
It takes no effort at all to be an athiest. It makes no extraordinary claims, therefore requires no extraordinary proof. It simply states "There is no evidence of God's existence, therefore I don't believe in God's existence".

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonm10 View Post
There are still big holes in the Big Bang theory they're still trying to prove. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as a Christian
The fact of the big bang is not in dispute. The details are still being learned about.

Edwin Hubble noticed that in the light spectra of distant starts, everything was red shifted due to doppler shift. The implication was that everything was receding from us, and the only logical explanation was that the universe is expanding. So, working it backwards, it was determined that the universe started from something smaller. An artifact of that, however, would be some remnant of an explosion or some similar event. It was calculated that the "remnant" would be a microwave radiation background level of 3 degrees K.

Round about that time, a couple of of Bell Labs engineers were trying to figure out why their microwave antenna picked up a constant background level of 3 degrees kelvin. They first thought it was pigeon poop. Really. They eventually found out that the noise was everywhere in the sky, but had no explanation.

Eventually, someone heard about Hubble's theory, and the Bell Labs experiments, and put the two groups together.

The Big Bang is real. It happened. It was independently calculated, then the critical piece of evidence was observed. Religious denial won't make those facts go away.

The beauty of science is, it doesn't care whether or not you believe it. It's still true for everybody.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.

Last edited by zz0468; 02-16-2018 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 02-18-2018, 6:36 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Default

zz0468 would you agree a force of energy would have been needed to create this big bang/expansion of the the Universe?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions