Dawkins big bang theory is laughable...imagine being in the local having a pint with friends when one of them says, 'Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. It started with a big bang which developed all the material in the universe in an instant. In one billionenth of a second there was nothing and then there was everything.' I don't know about you but I would say, 'Yeah, right, is it my round?' But when someone with the 'pedigree' of Dawkins says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right. Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse so my question to Dawkins is who was holding the match?
79 comments
"Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse..."
"Dawkins' big bang theory is laughable *hic*...imagine being in the local having a pint (which I was when I wrote this shit) *hic* with my...No I'm not drunk!! *hic*.."
Bryan Phillips wrote this just before he booted out of the pub and landed in the gutter.
Okay, you don't have your head burried in a bible now Mr. Phillips. You don't have to take EVERYTHING literally when you're out and about including a graphic description of the Big Bang Theory. Something I might add that appears to be far enough above your level of intellect to cause you to make really stupid assertions such as those above.
This is probably a pointless endeavor, but here goes.
With a bare minimum of googling "big bang" I found this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Try doing some actual research before making a claim. It's not that hard.
Common sense also tells us the "Bang" in Big Bang is metaphorical, and alludes to how the universe "explosively" expanded in those first few seconds of Existing.
Common sense also tells us common sense itself is at a premium, these days.
Okay, so between Dawkins, a world-renowned genious, and Bryan Phillips, and apparent moron, whom do we turn to for an explanation of the origins of the Universe?
There are many alternative cosmological theories, given the preliminary nature of out knowledge of the universe. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, make some predictions correctly and are challenged by other observations. One should note, however, that Genesis is not amongst them, nor would any theory that postulates an Earth older than the rest of the universe.
Will someone please tell these idiots that the big bang wasn't an explosion?
Here is the first million years of the universe compressed as five seconds of radiowaves (200,000yrs/1sec)
But when someone with the 'pedigree' of Dawkins says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right.
Some people, especially in the mass media (who should really know better by know, they've been burned by it enough times), do accept assertions based mainly or entirely on the authority of the speaker, the "pedigree" as you put it. (Oh, and practically all known religions, of course. Do you need a paramedic for that bullet wound in your foot?)
Genuinely rational people, scientists, etc, do not do this. They follow the derivation of the argument from the evidence and axioms, and satisfy themselves of its validity. I rather feel that scientific papers should really all be anonymous precisely to encourage such proper analysis, were it not for the fact that it'd make it too damn difficult to ensure the right person got paid to do their research, and cause countless other cataloguing and administrative nightmares.
The Biblical-literalist theory is laughable...imagine being in the local having a pint with friends when one of them says, 'Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. God spent from all eternity until 4004 B.C. doing nothing, and then He decided to create everything,. But He kept getting it wrong, so He had to expel Adam and Eve from the garden, drown the entire world except the passengers on the ark, issue a bunch of laws of which He later rescinded some, and sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from the hell that He had prepared for us.' I don't know about you but I would say, 'Yeah, right, is it my round?' But when someone with the 'pedigree' of the Biblical literalists says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right. Common sense tells us that an omni-everything deity should be able to get it right the first time so my question to the Biblical literalists is what was their deity smoking?
No one, including Dawkins, knows the cause of the "big bang". If someone wants to assume a god of some sort, there is no proof that they're wrong. Like all teleological arguments, it doesn't show that god still exists, that there was only one god, that god has any interest in humanity, etc. That's why theologians have mostly ignored the argument for the last few centuries.
"so my question to Dawkins is who was holding the match?"
Let's dive into this one and say 'God', just for the sake of it. Then let's watch Mr Phillips' rhetoric dry up once we pose the same question with regards to his mysterious creator, who, of course, is exempt from the two/three/whatever elements required to 'start' his existence.
Daily Mail readers: the UK version of the Religious Right.
Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse
1. true, if it was called the big FIRE theory, the third "constituent" you're looking for is oxygen, not fuse.
Bryan, baby, listen: Dawkins is a biologist, not a cosmologist or astrophysicist. And the Big Bang was not actually an explosion. The term is a metaphorical attempt to explain an instantaneous expansion. Expansion of what? I'm not enough of a scientist to explain it clearly. But the question has been answered. You could look it up. If you're interested in more than running your mouth.
Ah, a journalist from the Scaly Mail .
Quelle surprise .
For those of our Transatlantic cousins who have not encountered this unique example of idiosyncratic British journalism, here is a Daily Mail headline generator you can try for yourselves. This should give you a taste of the obsessions that haunt this paper's staff on a regular basis. :)
Mind you, this is their first venture into overt creationism as far as I can see. Hopefully enough people will laugh at Bryan Phillips to make it the last.
@Calilasseia
"DOES TEENAGE SEX INFECT HOUSE PRICES WITH AIDS?"
..wha? That's a little too messed up of a fake headline.
Quick, it has to be in tomorrow's early edition!
Dawkins big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory was made before Dawkin's said so.
is laughable... imagine being in the local having a pint with friends when one of them says, 'Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. It started with a big bang which developed all the material in the universe in an instant. In one billionenth of a second there was nothing and then there was everything.'
Riiiiight, how over-simplistic.
I don't know about you but I would say, 'Yeah, right, is it my round?'
Yeah, and you're drunk off ignorance. ::rimshot::
But when someone with the 'pedigree' of Dawkins says it the world gasps and accepts this crazy theory as being right.
It was accepted before Dawkins.
Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion
Big Bang =/= explosion.
there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse so my question to Dawkins is who was holding the match?
FAIL.
Dawkins did not invent the Big Bang theory. He's an evolutionary biologist, not a cosmologist. And scientists developed the theory based on observation of things like cosmic background radiation, and the drifting apart of galaxies. There's another recent theory I've heard of that has to do with colliding dimensions.
What's your theory again? Oh yeah, some random supernatural deity who convienently doesn't need a creator himself just decided to make a universe one day. How is that any less absurd than the big bang?
Herein lies the problem - this kind of extreme, groundbreaking science is beyond the comprehension of anyone without a PhD in physics, and beyond them at times, even though they know it works. I've seen many a quantum physicist on TV shake their heads after they've just explained something that seems ridiculously illogical, but that's backed by science. If a doctor of physics can't fully grasp it, how can we expect your average simple fundie to consider it?
I like urbandictionary's definition of the Daily Mail (142 up, 25 down):-
A UK newspaper which tries to pretend it isn't a tabloid for some unknown reason. They call themselves "A family paper with strong female readership, it has won many awards for editorial flair, outstanding reporting, design and print quality." I prefer to call it a racist, sexist, slanderous, homophobic, unprofessional, sensationalist Hitler fanzine. They are "morally outraged" by just about everything. Calls itself the only newpaper that stands up for what it believes in (aka. talks bullshit).
When Dawkins says it it's credible because he has a pedigree, whereas your friend's just a drunk ass retard.
So, who created the creator?
The Big Bang is not that kinda explosion, dimwit. It is the rapid expansion of the universe from nothing to something.
As for 'who lit the match', that's an open question to me, so I really care if someone argued that to me in a coherent and meaningful way
Is this Dawkins the biologist we're talking about? What does he have to do with the Big Bang theory?
Oh wait, Daily Mail. Nevermind.
Dawkins didn't formulate the big bang theory you nitwit.
Next time you decide to ineptly criticize science, at least find out who came up with the theory you are criticizing first. Then at least you will appear marginally less stupid.
Dawkins didn't formulate the big bang theory you nitwit.
Next time you decide to ineptly criticize science, at least find out who came up with the theory you are criticizing first. Then at least you will appear marginally less stupid.
Dear Bryan,
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I would strongly recommend you take a few courses, at least, before posting on the subject of science. Also, if you were the one making the following statement: "Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. Some great and powerful supernatural being, the origins of which are utterly unknown, snapped his divine fingers six times and made everything out of nothing." I trust you would understand my incredulity at this statement and my follow up about you having had too much to drink.
..And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
So, Bryan, it turns out St. Attila's the chap with the match. Happy now?
I tried to post a comment rebutting some of the article, but the website ate it...
To stay on topic, that guy's a moron.
"Common sense tells us that to cause an explosion there needs to be at least three constituents, the explosive material and a match to light the fuse..."
Common sense tells us that when you can't even count to three properly, you're 100% worth ignoring.
MK: there are 3 different objects: the explosive, the fuse and the match ; )
So what do you strike the match on? :-P
Imagine being in a cosmology seminar when someone says "hey I've found a problem with the big bang theory. Where did the dynamite come from?" "yeah, right, go back to your room and sleep it off". But when a fundie comes up with this nonsense all the other fundies accept it a proof that all science is wrong.
@Old Viking
Hence the suggested (and vastly improved, IMHO) alternate name,
Ghod, I miss Calvin and Hobbes ...
I'm guessing he got his information about the big bang from watching Family Guy.(there is an episode,Untitled Griffin Family History, where god lights one of his farts on fire and out comes the universe)
... Dawkins' big bang theory? Oy.
Imagine being in the local pub having a pint with friends when one of them says, "Hey, I've discovered the origin of the universe. A magic man done it." I don't know about you, but I'd say, "Uh, how'd he do it?"magic. "
And apparently this moron thinks that the big bang was a literal combustion.
Yeah, see when Stephen Dawkins wrote A Brief History of Time , and Richard Hawking wrote The God Delusion , they weren't actually jotting shit down on beer coasters and pulling assertations out their asses unlike you.
Furthermore, did you just allege God was Hillbilly Joe with a stick of gelly?
Jay Gould? Stephen J. Gould? Are you there? Could you explain YOUR theory of Solar Conversion to this person? I know that you are sometimes a bloody stupid YEC, but could you tell him how You postulated that Stars convert matter from hydrogen? Please? And how the Big bang theory is not yours? And the argument from incredulousity is wrong?
You know, my friends and I often sit around drinking and come up with some pretty interesting ideas like you and your friends Bryan. The difference is that we sober up before we write some of that drunken babble into a newspaper for all the world to see our ignorance. Bryan take my advice, a lot things that sound good and reasonable when you are drunk, sound stupid as shit when you are sober, especially if you have no clue of what you are talking about to begin with.
Only that, in case you're wondering, it didn't happen this way. It was formulated by a priest through investigation, test and error, as science does. And he kept on believing, by the way. Ironic?
The Big Bang did not happen inside the universe.
The Big Bang created the universe.
It's not Dawkin's theory.
Explosive material + match = 2 constituents, not 3.
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.
