Difference between revisions of "Talk:Big Bang theory"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT) | :::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonesense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method | + | ::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonesense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have eveything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 14:41, March 22, 2007
It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". Scorpionman 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmis background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? Scientz 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. Tsumetai 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonesense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have eveything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. Scientz 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)