Death my TomTom (bad joke!!)
Well I've written this journal entry thee times now (including this one) I usually do that with everything. E-mails get written many more times than anything else, if you have an extensive e-mail from me then you probably have a fortieth draft or something. Text-messages I can also write several times. When I write a story, I write it each small
( Read more... )
It doesn't prove you wrong or antyhing, but there actually HAS been more than 1 recorded 'Big Bang'.
Now I can't remember the exact elements to create it, but it is only about 3 or 4 Neutrons, and just 1 Electron(OBVIOUSLY with many many other little details in all sorts of stuff) . When they combine...boom. Now, they cannot prove exactly when and where and blah blah blah, but there are recorded events of the 'Big Bang' happening at least 2 times in recorded history.
No, they aren't what eveyone thinks is (creator of the entire universe) To tell the Truth, scientists say that the 'Big Boom' that created the galaxy we live in, as rather large. Not gigantic, but on the large size.
So it is possible that all the galaxies (or at least multiple) have been created by the Big Bang theorie (god damnit...spent five minutes on the spelling and still can't)
So, at the same time, it's possible that there is indeed life elsewhere.
You're point is still proven, I am not disclaiming it, I am saying that you were just wrong on that one idea.
Reply
But to the part about two Big Bangs. You're thinking of Chaos Theory. (Or any other parallel universe theory, for that matter) In which case there is no possible way to prove or disprove their existences.
Also, it's either misuse of words or it's just plain wishful thinking to try and convince me (or anyone) that the Big Bang was 'recorded' - Who was around to record it if it (supposedly) happened so long before any life was thought to exist?
Reply
(Also, I might be thinking universe too. The Big Bang created our solar system, Pluto, Mars, Venus, blah blah, the other 9, I mean 8 planets and the 1 dwarf planet)
The scientist with the super high powerful telescopes record what happens in the skies, and they have recorded the happenings of a 'Big Bang' It has created other Galaxies.
And for fucking once, just because you did some research and you didn't find anything on it, doesn't mean you are fucking right. You use that argument all the time, but truthfully it doesn't mean cock-shit.
now this one isn't very good at all either, but at least it's true. The History Channel only plays stuff they are absolutely sure is true, unless it can't be proven either way.
Reply
Also go back and re-read your posts. If you just checked them your self you could probably spare us all the stress of your spelling (which can be worse than mine sometimes- no offence) and you'd catch yourself misusing a word if that really is the case.
I might not be saying that you're wrong. You could just be getting words mixed up. I do that a lot to, which is why I re-write everything. Just so to make it clear, the universe is everything that exists in the physical plain, a galaxy is a big swirl thing of stars (We happen to be in the Milky Way Galaxy), and a solar system is a sun/star that is orbited by planets.
First off: The Big Bang Theory is the theory how the universe was created. That's just what it is. You can't really argue the definition of a word... well, maybe YOU can XD jkjk
Secondly: You're giving the History Channel far too much credit. It doesn't matter who they are, or how reliable their sources are, it's still a bad idea to just accept something without questioning it, because they can be wrong a lot of the time. (especially when it's "science" related. I'll bet that more "science" is proven wrong every day than is answered.) I tried that once and I got into an argument that lasted nearly a month. Bad thing.
It's also a bad idea, when you haven’t done any real research of your own, to call yourself correct over someone who has done research on the topic. It just makes you sound haughty.
Thirdly: Don't call Pluto a dwarf planet. If you do it again I'll shove it up Uranus.
Reply
Reply
However, me saying you didn't do research is not an assumption. It's a logical understanding from the evidence and implications you have given to support your argument.
1: "The History Channel only plays stuff they are absolutely sure is true" -- If you believe the History Channel to be so majestic in it's knowledge (Yes I was exaggerating, I do that a lot. I should probably stop, huh?) then why would you have cause to consult any other resources?
2: The consultation of just one resource is not research. It's scrutiny.
3: "The scientist with the super high powerful telescopes record what happens in the skies" -- A lot of scientists have telescopes. But you said "THE scientists" and never gave any evidence to show which scientists you were talking about. That shows that either you were just making it up (Which I deemed unlikely and went with the second option) or that you relied on only one resource [The History Channel], which circles back to the first two points I just made.
p.s. "...(not often, thankfully) but you often..." - that's what I meant by "check back over what you write". I know what you mean, but it's little blunders like that that "non-friends" you might argue with won't take to so kindly.
Reply
As for this arguement, I don't really remember anybody saying miracles didn't exist. Sure they do. But who cares? Never happed to /me/ before...
God vs. Science?
...Oh dear Lord. (no pun intended).
Reply
Leave a comment