The only thing holding up the Big Bang is politics and religion, there's no science to support it at all. None. Those who hold science grant purse strings will black ball anyone who suggests the emperor has no clothes.
33 comments
If there was no science supporting it at all, it wouldn't be a theory, nitwit.
It's your emperor that is naked, dearie.
I never ceased to be amazed at the way they dismiss scientific consensus about things like the Big Bang, Evolution and Global Warming with statements like "there no evidence" and insist some mysterious powerful cabal will "black ball" anyone who disagrees.
This is why you can't even have a conversation with these people. They're fucking delusional.
@ 1705880
I've never understood, either, why they can't just accept the big bang and evolution as the method of God's creation, thereby reconciling religion and science, as most non-fundamentalists of all denominations do. I guess if your whole foundation for belief rest upon the creation stories being fact, you can't let in anything that will make that house of cards fall--especially if you get to use that book to justify mistreating people you secretly hate.
If you're so worried about people with money pulling strings, maybe you should start looking into why you're working for shit wages with even shittier health care, while paying a higher tax rate than billionares, instead of spouting off about science that you clearly don't understand.
The only thing holding up the Big Bang is politics and religion, there's no science to support it at all. None.
Meanwhile, in Bizzaro world...
Those who hold science grant purse strings will black ball anyone who suggests the emperor has no clothes.
And just how much money do you think various religious groups would be able to throw any any scientist who had a theory which would counter the BBT?
And yet the only counter given to BBT is always political or religious... it's almost like the people who want to get rid of it know full well they don't have any science to support them.
Franko, if that were true, then tell me: why didn't scientists working during the administrations of more religious presidents such as George Bush produce results denying climate change* and the Big Bang Theory? As for science supporting the Big Bang, look up the cosmic background radiation, the homogeneity of the universe, the distribution of elements in the universe aligning with the Big Bang model, etc.
*This argument is often brought up against climate change, so I figured I might as well get two birds with one stone.
You really have no idea how science works, do you? If anyone disproved the Big Bang Theory, they would be inundated with grants, research proposals and possibly Nobel prizes. You're talking about some of the most competitive people on earth, all trying to disprove each other because that's how reputations are made.
"The only thing holding up Creationism is politics and religion, there's no science to support it at all. None."
Written that way, it's a true statement.
The Big Bang is the best idea to fit the circumstances of creation with regard to other scientific insights. If scientists can posit other, more plausible ideas explaining the origin of the universe, they'll do it (and gladly). Intelligent Design is not, was not, and never will be a worthy alternative.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
