Recent Comments

1. 2 days ago on Non Sequitur

   In other words, you don’t know what it is, so you know what it is. Left handedness and epileptic seizures were proof of Satan. Hurricanes and tornadoes were proof of god’s wrath. Droughts were proof of god’s absence, and lightning was proof of Thor. Whenever something has been proven to have previously been believed as coming from or through a god, that god has yet to be proven to be the answer.

   Also, I’ve already clarified that what’s known is “the big bang” was a quick and massive expansion of what already existed, so didn’t need to come from anywhere. The argument of “nothing is infinite, and nothing can come from nothing” is often used to back the belief that a god is infinite, and created everything from nothing. Until gods can be proven to exist through science, gods are not a part of science, just like science based entirely on faith isn’t science.

2. 3 days ago on Non Sequitur

   The standard concept of a god is something that does not exist in reality, and has no real way of proving or disproving its existence. It fits scientifically with leprechauns, unicorns, and elves, with the argument against being the absolute proof of any evidence for.

   The “big bang” is a popular misnomer for the quantum inflation on a scaler field, where all of the matter already existed, but was previously condensed to the level where time itself stopped. Black holes work pretty much the same way, where the flow of time drastically slows down just a little past the event horizon. The math and evidence only points to the existence of the point of the sudden rapid expansion of all matter, and if any evidence exists which points to anything else, it has yet to be found.

   Something happened, and we’re able to see what happened, even if we have yet to understand what happened prior to that 1/10^34 of a second. (That’s prior to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of the universe existing.) Science follows the evidence where it leads, and it leads to our current understanding. You’re saying to dismiss it until we understand 100% of it.

3. 4 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Off the top of my head, quantum redshifting proves the mathematics to an extent, with the verification of ripples in space time (better known as gravity waves) providing even firmer proof. And my profession is not at all in the area of astrophysics.

   As I stated earlier in this thread, a scientific theory is supported by the available evidence, and destroyed by evidence against it. What evidence do you have which goes against the established evidence?

4. 6 days ago on Non Sequitur

   It’s probably safe to say that Jeffrey will never be a public school teacher. Which is fortunate, because Danae might very well still be struggling in public school when Jeffrey would become one.

5. 6 days ago on Non Sequitur

   In your world, how many people do the police murder to prove that someone has murdered? Evidence can prove or disprove things, without having to exactly repeat that thing.

6. 9 days ago on Non Sequitur

   Agreed on the overuse of the word “theory” to promote bogus ideas. The “creation theory”, also known as the “theory of intelligent design”, has to redefine basic terms of science to pass itself off as science. “Trickle down economics” has been described by some as an economic theory, despite the fact that it was proven to be bogus decades before Ronald Reagan popularized it again. Conspiracy theories are a verifiable cornucopia of logical fallacies and leaps of fancy all on their own, with some of their loudest promoters always finding new ways to hype up another end of the world or massive die off of the human race, and keeping their loyal followers after consistently being proven wrong.

7. 10 days ago on Non Sequitur

   How has it been tested? By observing the evidence for it, and failing to find evidence against it. Plenty of details are out there for those who look, presented by experts, who can back their explanations with easily understood details.

8. 10 days ago on Non Sequitur

   It’s no more silly than arguing that a scientific theory is just a guess. Germ theory, economic theory, atomic theory, numbers theory, theory of general relativity, theory of special relativity, etc.

9. 18 days ago on Non Sequitur

   And here I thought it was the graves for those behind the “Dominoes” game.

10. 21 days ago on Non Sequitur

    Too much straw manning, not enough steel manning.