I've never really understood why people post such idiotic things on articles regarding science on the internet. I stumbled on one this morning, and couldn't help but give a face palm to some of the comments that followed. Here are a few examples:
"My other real question for all those that believe in the big bang, if no matter can be created or destroyed, where did matter come from in the first place?"
Immediately after the big bang, the universe was filled with radiation(IE Energy). And while energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can change forms. And that's exactly what happened. Energy and matter are interchangeable, and convertible.
Now if you ask "Where did that radiation come from?". We just do not know. In order to know that we would have to know the state of the universe before the big bang. Science simply hasn't advanced to the point where we can do that, yet.
"It seems to me that there is something that travels as fast as it wants to. If a ship can travel faster than the current of a river, then it must be that the true light from the light can travel faster than light. There is no absolute anymore than there is a smartest person in the world."
Now this one really got to me. This is a person who clearly does not understand the theory of relativity at all or why the speed of light is what it is. It's not about will or choice, it's about the physical laws of the universe.
The analogy is also completely ludicrous. A boat traveling faster than the flow of a river is not at all the same thing as an object with mass exceeding the speed of light. Not to mention the last sentence not making any sense at all.
"If you have a mass as dense as what is required for the supposed Big Bang to happen, it’s not going to explode – nothing is moving, because everything is so packed"
First of all, this statement is totally idiotic and shows the poster doesn't understand the concept of an implosion, but that's besides the main point. That being, the big bang wasn't an explosion in the typical sense of the word.
"At least he would DESERVE the Nobel unlike some people I know…..cough, cough…Obama and Carter!!"
This one doesn't have much to do with science, but it irked me nonetheless. People who post comments like this(Of which there are a surprisingly large number) seem to not understand that there's a difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and the science awards.
"For the evolutionists:
http://www.google.com/#q=animals+that+defy+evolution+youtube&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=iciMTezyFJSasAPGmp2GCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQqwQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=beb5cba07b2fe24d "
Yet more ignorance of science. Evolution doesn't happen by "random chance". The fact that creationists suggest this proves they're either unwilling to actually understand the concept, or they're willfully misrepresenting the concept. It's only random in so far as the mutations themselves, whether they continue on into successive generations is NOT random.
"what would be amazing is that a child would prove all of “mans” theories are wrong…God does indeed work in mysterious ways…I wonder if his parents are believers, and this is why the kid is taking on this subject of the big bang theory?…I say “let him go”..as far as the nobel peace prize…after Gore won it and then obama.. it’s nothing but another pat on the back for librals…this years award will probably go to soros or piven…mark my words!"
I'm not going to bother saying much about this one, other than that the ignorance within is astounding.
"It would be nice to have him figure how to use hydragin as a fuel supply……It’s beyond me that back several hundred years ago a frenchman can figure how to burn hyrdragin.. where did that knowledge go?"
Burning something and using it as fuel are two totally different things. The fact is, we don't use hydrogen as a fuel for cars because it's HIGHLY combustible. If we used hydrogen to power cars by simply burning the gas, any car accident would be much more likely to result in a rather large explosion.
"I’m no scientist, not even close, but I always imagined someone scientifically proving creation etc. Interested to see what he can get credit for in the future."
That will never EVER happen. Even if it turns out that God did create the universe, science is never going to prove it.
"That may be true, especially because some Intelligent Design theories actually implement the Big Bang theory by explaining that God created the Big Bang, which actually doesn’t go against the Genesis creation story if one were to put it into its proper context. However, it does go a very long way toward disproving evolution, as well, which, in turn, would bring more proof to Intelligent Design."
The big bang and evolution have NOTHING to do with one another. Even if the theory of the big bang turns out to be false, that does not even imply that evolution is wrong.
"I therefore propose, that once (if) the big bang theory is confirmed, it will prove that all was created in an instant — or very very short time. Who but god could do that? … while simultaneously mutating the laws of nature at a whim!"
I'm sure I don't have to explain to anyone why this is an incredibly stupid comment. But for sake of argument; Science doesn't claim ANYONE did it. Science claims it simply occurred this way.
"And there has been no proof in evolution, much less the start of how life began on earth or how it could start anywhere without help."
I think this will be the last one. I'm getting a little angry with the ignorance here, and all of these posts are from a single article.
First, there is a tonne of supporting evidence for evolution. Second, scientists have several pretty good ideas of how life started without any help from a creator being. Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean we should give up the search and simply exclaim "God did it".
With that I'm done. I just cannot read any more of those comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment