Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal


MLD Woody

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 478
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Individual scientists make mistakes, of course, but that's the point in peer review. If someone publishes a paper, then you can bet there are 10 people trying to disprove it, especially something as big as the big bang.

 

As for the OJ, that's basically the same thing - one scientist does a study that shows slightly higher risk of disease x, then other scientists corroborate or disprove.

 

Enjoy your drink. I've just got up.

your funny...

So what you are telling me is that a peer reviewed publication is 100% true with no room for error? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Cysko put up a link on the problems with the BBT and this thread instantly had crickets chirping. Like I said its to big and vast to put that much certainty in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your funny...

So what you are telling me is that a peer reviewed publication is 100% true with no room for error? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Cysko put up a link on the problems with the BBT and this thread instantly had crickets chirping. Like I said its to big and vast to put that much certainty in.

No, a peer reviewed paper is not 100% flawless. It's saying that with all the technology and knowledge we have, we cannot disprove the paper. That's not to say that in the future it won't be disproved. The point about the big bang is that it is the model that best fits the evidence, and can best make predictions about the future. It's not likely to be thrown out completely unless there's some genuinely paradigm-altering discoveries made. Tweaked, of course, but not thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are scientists who were "blackkballed" out of influence because

they didn't agree with mmgw.

 

In fact, in '95, the UN report on mmgw? There were 5 scientists' opinions to the

contrary in that report.

 

They were deleted. Deleted by a cohort of Maurice Strong, a 30 year UN employee/associate/financier....

It's a long story.

 

But mmgw was a UN farce that was the ticket to a one world currency, and spreading the globes'

wealth to poor countries....

 

and to the pockets of people like Maurice Strong, Soros, and others.

 

Look up the foreign company name "Hara"...or maybe it was "Harrah". Their CEO admits

they could make about 500 billion on the acceptance of mmgw and their software that

monitors carbon trading etc.

 

And who is a major investor in that company? Guess. Don't know? Al Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, everything about climate change is a god damn conspiracy. Thousands upon thousands of scientists and scientific groups resoundingly agree with the current climate change model because they are all on the take from the govt. and liberals. Every study has fixed numbers. All the scientists lie. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that's what I'm seeing - gravitational waves discovered!

It's not a direct measurement of gravitational waves, just a by-product of them.

 

Via RESONAANCES blog...

 

One final remark: newspapers are spinning this story as the discovery of gravitational waves. Right, there is a connection: the primordial B-mode amplitude originates from fluctuations of the metric at the time when CMB photons decoupled from matter. So finding the B-mode can be viewed as another (after the Hulse-Taylor binaries) indirect confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves. But the discovery of the primordial B-mode in the CMB is much much bigger than that.

 

 

They might get a Nobel prize for this, as it invalidates a bunch of theories and resolves three major holes in the Big Bang Theory - The Horizon Problem, The Flatness Problem, and The Magnetic Monopole Problem. This is a major step toward a unifying theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need more than "trust me he did it". Proof of a god, any god, doesn't exist. Furthermore, if God were to appear he would have some explaining to do.

Well you're pretty much shit out of luck looking for proof from god or science. One relies on faith and one leans pretty heavily on maybe's kinda sortas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...