Why do science hide the truth?

[Polymath257]

My evidence of proof all lays within God's word,. unto which again, you can't handle

All because God's word defeats, how scientist Theory, Opinion, Suggestion, without any actual proof of evidence

Scientists acknowledge when they are making conjectures and discussing possibilities as opposed to what is supported by the evidence.

The basic Big Bang scenario is fully supported by the evidence. What, if anything, was prior to that is all speculation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The current expansion phase began 13.7 billion years ago. The *Earth* formed 4.5 billion years ago. The Earth is only about 1/3 the age of the universe.




First, this is *very* speculative.

Second, it is in the context of a multiverse model of quantum gravity. But it is far from being the only such model. At this point, we cannot test between the models we have. Some models have stuff prior to the Big Bang. Others do not. Which is why I asked if you have proof there was anything prior to the Big Bang.

Third, it in NO way impacts the Big Bang model for the last 13.7 billion years.

Nor does it involve coliding meteors.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, 100% is too strong. I should have said until indisputable or best accepted, my bad. The point is science builds to the truth. as pointed out by you in your example of general relativity.

I like how it builds so imperfectly...filled with wrong turns, controversy, correction.
This keeps things exciting.

 

[Windwalker]

Magic is not an explanation.

Technically, it is. It's an explanation for why or how things happen, when we lack a fuller more complex understanding of how things work. "It just does it 'somehow' is what is held by the mind, and that 'somehow' is filled in with rudimentary explanations.

Weather systems which affect crop growth being unpredictable in the ancient past would explain these things via systems of magical causations. God controls it, and was mad at them for letting the boys from the other tribe marry their daughters. To fix the system, they must sacrifice a virgin. It's all still reasoning, but from within a system of magical components.

 

[Polymath257]

Well it's evidence that this scientist thinks they know,
Why don't you take it up them, seeing how this scientist is disputing the Big Bang theory

No, this scientist is *extending* the Big Bang theory. And yes, what he did is speculation and goes beyond the evidence.

But the Big Bang theory itself is on solid evidential grounds.

 

[David T]

I dont say science always hide truth
But why do science sometimes not tell the full story? can it be because then they would show to the people that we have been fooled for ages? example is Egypt pyramid in Giza, Why do you think they said it was Tutankhamun burial site when it was never found any pharao within the pyramid? can it be because they did not want us to know that egypt 5000-2500 years ago was actually a lot more advanced then we think? because WOW it would be strange that previous times was more advanced then we are today, right?

The Great Pyramids' true purpose has now been revealed - NTD Inspired

Why does this always default to Bigfoot?

 

[ecco]

The Great Pyramids' true purpose has now been revealed - NTD Inspired

The link takes us to an article with no stated author. Perhaps Amanake himself wrote it. Who knows. The author and Amanake suggest that one evidence for ancient electricity is "gold plating". In support of this theory, the author links to an article about ancient Egyptian's use of gold:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81790937.pdf
Gold Technology in Ancient Egypt
MASTERY OF METAL WORKING METHODS
T. G. H. James The British Museum, London


Obviously, the author didn't read the article himself. If he had read it, he would have found that it was very descriptive of the way the Egyptians actually got and used gold including for example:

The melting, casting, and working of gold are well illustrated in a relief from the tomb of Mereruka dating from about 2300 B.C.,, at Saqqara
​

There is no mention of the use of electricity. None.

The author, and in turn Amanake, make the mistake of linking to articles that do not support their arguments but actually serve to refute them. Whether this is done through laziness or with the hope that no one will follow up on the details of their posts, only they can say. However, I suspect it is a combination of both.

I have found that this practice of "post a link to a good sounding article and hope no one actually reads it" is almost always used by woosters.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, this scientist is *extending* the Big Bang theory. And yes, what he did is speculation and goes beyond the evidence.

But the Big Bang theory itself is on solid evidential grounds.

If to what you say is true, Then what caused the Big Bang theory.
If you notice the word ( theory) you do know what theory means.
It means its only a theory without evidence.
That it's just someone's Theory, opinion, suggestion. and that's all it is.

So that's all the Big Bang is just a theory an option a suggestion without any substance to it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's actually a hypothesis about what caused the big bang - no evidence as yet.

Why does it even matter to you? What do you think an unknown in science is supposed to make people think? What science does and doesn't know, and to what degree of confidence, isn't a secret. Nobody who knows about science is going to be surprised.

And why the glaring double standards? Why can't you provide even a hint of any evidence for your god?

There is evidence, but why do i need to waste my time and your time, when you know and I know that you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Can you say what caused the big bang.
And then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and ect--------?

You see I can keep asking, so how far back can you go to explain how this happened and how that happened and how that happened.
So go all the way way way way back before the big bang, and explain exactly what was happening and going on, can you do that.
But also provide the details and information.

 

[Shad]

no one will follow up on the details of their posts,

I think a person could make a fortune on bets. The odds are not great for the house

 

[Polymath257]

If to what you say is true, Then what caused the Big Bang theory.

Why do you think it was caused?

If you notice the word ( theory) you do know what theory means.
It means its only a theory without evidence.

Wrong. That's what it means to be a hypothesis. A theory, in science, is a general description that has been repeatedly supported by observation (i.e, evidence).

That it's just someone's Theory, opinion, suggestion. and that's all it is.

So that's all the Big Bang is just a theory an option a suggestion without any substance to it.

Sorry, but wrong. A scientific theory is a well-supported body of knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

There is evidence, but why do i need to waste my time and your time, when you know and I know that you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Can you say what caused the big bang.
And then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and ect--------?

Why do you assume that everything has a cause? Especially when time and the universe don't exist?

You see I can keep asking, so how far back can you go to explain how this happened and how that happened and how that happened.
So go all the way way way way back before the big bang, and explain exactly what was happening and going on, can you do that.
But also provide the details and information.

We don't know if anything happened before the Big Bang. Anything concerning that is speculation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If to what you say is true, Then what caused the Big Bang theory.
If you notice the word ( theory) you do know what theory means.
It means its only a theory without evidence.
That it's just someone's Theory, opinion, suggestion. and that's all it is.

So that's all the Big Bang is just a theory an option a suggestion without any substance to it.

I know he understands what a theory is, just as I do and just as clearly you do not. The common or colloquial definition of a theory--how you are using it--is an idea, a guess, speculation, even an hypothesis. Fortunately for us, a scientific theory is none of those things. A scientific theory is a logical, valid explanation of the evidence built on a framework of fact and observation.

The evidence of the big bang lead to the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evidence, but why do i need to waste my time and your time, when you know and I know that you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Can you say what caused the big bang.
And then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and then explain what caused that to happen and ect--------?

You see I can keep asking, so how far back can you go to explain how this happened and how that happened and how that happened.
So go all the way way way way back before the big bang, and explain exactly what was happening and going on, can you do that.
But also provide the details and information.

You have no objective, evidence for the existence of God. You may believe you do, but you do not. No one has produced such evidence in thousands of years of looking. Why would anyone expect it to come from you. You do not even know what a scientific theory is and you think the Big Bang theory was about meteors crashing into each other.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You have no objective, evidence for the existence of God. You may believe you do, but you do not. No one has produced such evidence in thousands of years of looking. Why would anyone expect it to come from you. You do not even know what a scientific theory is and you think the Big Bang theory was about meteors crashing into each other.

As I have all the evidence I need, just because you can't accept it, it's no fault of mine

 

[Faithofchristian]

I know he understands what a theory is, just as I do and just as clearly you do not. The common or colloquial definition of a theory--how you are using it--is an idea, a guess, speculation, even an hypothesis. Fortunately for us, a scientific theory is none of those things. A scientific theory is a logical, valid explanation of the evidence built on a framework of fact and observation.

The evidence of the big bang lead to the theory.

And Theory is just that, a Speculation, an opinion, suggestion, but nothing base on actual evidence of someone being there to give witness

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why do you think it was caused?



Wrong. That's what it means to be a hypothesis. A theory, in science, is a general description that has been repeatedly supported by observation (i.e, evidence).



Sorry, but wrong. A scientific theory is a well-supported body of knowledge.

Nope wrong, you can't ask a question when a question is being ask.
So seeing I ask the question first, then what caused the big bang ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why do you assume that everything has a cause? Especially when time and the universe don't exist?



We don't know if anything happened before the Big Bang. Anything concerning that is speculation.

If time didn't exist and the universe didn't exist, Then explain exactly what caused the big bang .
Seeing how you said nothing was there
So how did the big bang come about if nothing was there.

Don't say this happen or that happen no, nothing was there remember.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope wrong, you can't ask a question when a question is being ask.
So seeing I ask the question first, then what caused the big bang ?

We don't know.

We don't know that there *was* a cause.

In fact, it only makes sense to talk about a cause if *something* existed before, which requires time. The only way *that* makes sense is in some sort of multiverse scenario.

But even in a multiverse scenario, it may well be that our universe was a quantum event that was itself uncaused. We simply do not know right now. And until we have a tested theory of quantum gravity, we won't know.

So, in return, why do you think it was caused? I strongly suspect it wasn't.

 

[Polymath257]

If time didn't exist and the universe didn't exist, Then explain exactly what caused the big bang .
Seeing how you said nothing was there
So how did the big bang come about if nothing was there.

Don't say this happen or that happen no, nothing was there remember.

Well, the point is that it is better to think of the universe as consisting of both space and time (along with all matter and energy). In this, spacetime simply exists. it isn't caused. And, in fact, it *cannot* be caused because causality only makes sense within spacetime.

So, I don't think there was a cause for the Big Bang. it simply represents the earliest time for our spacetime. Sort of like the south pole of the Earth represents the smallest latitude.

The Big Bang didn't 'come about'. it wasn't caused. Spacetime, as a whole, simply exists.