Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 29792

Excuse me, I do get your point. That's why the idea of Big Bang exists, so it doesn't have to deal with the fossil record or any other record of slow evolution. You seem to miss my point sir. And the multiple exclamation points are not necessary.

The big bang consists of things evolving in big leaps as opposed to smaller ones instead. So the fossil record isn't needed in the big bang theory, and therefore isn't dealt with. It doesn't need to be. I don't appreciate your rudeness at all.

Where is the actual data and proof and evidence that says the very first moment of our universe is billions of years old? Who actually said "I have proof that this universe is billions of years old"? WHat scientific data makes this valid?

Marilyn Oakley, amazon.com discussions 31 Comments [10/8/2007 12:13:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
#304109
Necronomikron

Umm... cosmology !- biology != ..what the hell is the rest of that?

10/8/2007 12:15:34 PM
#304118
Vampirehummingbird

The Hubbel Telescope can view objects over 13B light-years away. These distances have been verified by triangulation.

10/8/2007 12:22:18 PM
#304119
happymealungen

The big bang consists of things evolving in big leaps as opposed to smaller ones instead.



Surely you jest?

10/8/2007 12:23:39 PM
#304137
Mister Spak

The big bang blew up all the fossiles so we don't have to deal with them.

10/8/2007 12:37:05 PM
#304150
Papabear

Whoa, Nellie!, er, uh, I mean, Marilyn. The Big Bang and the ToE are completely different theories. One is cosmology and the other is biology.

I don't appreciate your ignorance at all.

10/8/2007 12:49:46 PM
#304151
David B.

Either she's confused the 'big bang' model with 'punctuated equilibria', or she's totally f***ing ignorant.

Wait, that's not either/or.

10/8/2007 12:50:02 PM
#304154


"Where is the actual data and proof and evidence that says the very first moment of our universe is billions of years old? Who actually said "I have proof that this universe is billions of years old"? WHat scientific data makes this valid?"

There's this nifty thing called the Doppler Effect. Everyone has experienced this (ie. as ambulance with sirens on approaches you, the pitch gets higher; then when it passes you, it drops and gets lower as it drives away.) The same happens with light. When we look at other galaxies, we notice a red-shift; that is, because of the doppler effect, the light appears red, which means they are all moving away from eachother. So, what if we reverse this so that all galaxies are in the same position? How long would this take? About 14 billion years.

10/8/2007 12:55:45 PM
#304172
Osiris

Where is the actual data and proof and evidence that says the very first moment of our universe is billions of years old?
Radio-isotope dating and red shifts. Next.

10/8/2007 1:07:31 PM
#304180
Fanatic-Templar

If I ever start discussing something I know less than nothing about as though I were an authority on the matter, someone please kick me in the arse.

10/8/2007 1:10:18 PM
#304196
Doctor Whom

Yes that's exactly what the big bang is. Where did you go to junior high school again?

10/8/2007 1:24:12 PM
#304202
Caustic Gnostic

The big bang consists of things evolving in big leaps as opposed to smaller ones instead. No.

So the fossil record isn't needed in the big bang theory, and therefore isn't dealt with. It doesn't need to be. That part is correct.

I don't appreciate your rudeness at all.
We don't appreciate stupid interpretations of science.


10/8/2007 1:29:54 PM
#304207
Freboy

HAHAHA

Fanatic-Templar For The Win!

My own take on this post is:

Seriously, just because religious beliefs are older, discrediting science doesn't make them more true.

10/8/2007 1:36:33 PM
#304223
Scientist

Actually, I said I had proof that this universe is billions of years old. :-)

10/8/2007 1:51:55 PM
#304242


The simplest answer is NO, NO AND NO.

10/8/2007 2:27:26 PM
#304260
agentCDE

What.

10/8/2007 2:47:07 PM
#304272
Old Viking

The big bang consists of things evolving in big leaps ...

No, no. You're thinking of Darwin's Kangaroo Theory. The Big Bang theory says fireworks will occur every Fourth of July.

10/8/2007 3:04:38 PM
#304280
SSJPunk

The big bang theory is now about exploding fossils.

10/8/2007 3:12:47 PM
#304287
Andy

Ah yes, another "THE STUPID... IT BURNS" moment.

10/8/2007 3:22:50 PM
#304292
Eric

Dr. Cox?
Wrong!

Thank you Dr. Cox.

10/8/2007 3:27:06 PM
#304298
D Laurier

No, the Big Bang does NOT consist of things evolving AT ALL PERIOD.

10/8/2007 3:41:31 PM
#304314
Detrs

Someone actually believes that?

10/8/2007 4:03:12 PM
#304326
szena

Those evil scientists invented the Big Bang theory, which states that new species developed in big leaps, to explain why there were "no transitional fossils."

Excuse me, I have a headache now.

10/8/2007 4:25:22 PM
#304404
Current

Dear moron:

Free links!!! (sorry for the exclamation mark abuse)

Big Bang

Punctuated equilibrium


10/8/2007 6:10:04 PM
#304405
King Duncan

Seriously. What the hell? What do they smoke before typing this stuff?

10/8/2007 6:12:16 PM
#304412
Berny

I think this is what happens when you use the Bible for rolling paper.

10/8/2007 6:28:06 PM
1 2