This. One of the reasons evidence of life on Earth going back billions of years is hard to find is because of natural erosion, rock "recycling" via subduction, etc. Mars has significantly less issues in terms of samples being destroyed by these natural processes like it would on Earth. However, you still need a mechanism for the specimens to be preserved, such as rapid burial by silt/mud/etc and then the subsequently fossilization.
Please don't tell me you or he works in any sort of scientific endeavor... if so, you must fire this man immediately.
1-3. The correct answer is to say we dont fucking know. Saying our ignorance is proof or evidence for anything, be it a higher god or not is ridiculously unfounded. I agree that the big bang and many other theories(brane collisions) are total garbage. Your god theory just happens to be even MORE total garbage, its just worse because there is no physical reason to leap to that conclusion. Who created god?
Well if you agree there's no evidence for god, why do you keep bringing him up.
I agree with everything you said in exception to the quote above. The big bang theory is far from a total garbage theory with no evidence.
No doubt its at a much higher standard than the theory of god, as it does have evidence to support some of its claims. My reasons for disliking it are better saved for another time, no need to shit up this thread more than jesus.
Is it a scientific reason for not liking the BBT? If so I think this is the perfect place for the discussion. If it is philosophical reason for not liking the theory it is irrelevant.
Are you unaware that matter is just energy in another form? I would be willing to wager that there was a scientific fuckton of energy taking place during the big bang.
BBT is natural philosophy. Hense, all arguments for or against its existance are inherently philosophical in nature. My problem with the BBT is that is almost entirely molded after the fact to match observed data. I would find the case for it more compelling if there were more predictions that were upheld. Instead, a great many of them have been entirely wrong. In any widely applied theory there will predictions upheld, even if the theory is complete bullshit. You could say that this is the scientific process, but the scientific process doesn't apply to philosophy, only to refining our understanding of observable information. So while I will say the BBT is a curious idea, I find the notion that it should be accepted as fact woefully lacking.
The LHC tests the limits on particle physics- a different branch of science. The rules of physics were different during the early stage of the bbt, so the LHC isnt applicable to that. Of course you could apply the findings of the LHC to the BBT after the rules of physics normalize, but it also applies to everything dealing with physics. To say that its somehow putting the BBT specifically to test is quite misleading.
its the only way to make the BBT work. Its silly, and one of my major problems with the theory.
look...no offense but i think you really have no idea what you are talking about
