The Big Bang - Where's the Evidence?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Lots of Evidence

From the Gemini chatbot:

There's a wealth of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, fitting together like pieces of a puzzle. Here are some key areas:

1. Expanding Universe:

• Redshift: Distant galaxies' light appears stretched out (redshifted) as they move away from us, indicating universal expansion. This aligns with the Big Bang's prediction of everything starting from a hot, dense point and continually expanding.

2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):

• This faint echo of radiation fills the universe and is seen as a "fossil light" from the Big Bang's hot, early stages. The CMB's properties closely match Big Bang predictions about the universe's temperature and composition at that time.

3. Abundance of Light Elements:

• The Big Bang theory predicts the amounts of light elements like hydrogen and helium formed in the early universe. Astronomers find these elements in abundances that remarkably match the Big Bang's predictions when looking at very old stars and galaxies.

4. Evolution of Galaxies and Large Structures:

• Over time, the Big Bang theory suggests the universe formed simple structures that gradually evolved into complex galaxies and large-scale cosmic structures like filaments and clusters. Cosmological observations support this progression.

These are the main pillars of evidence, but further observations continue to strengthen the Big Bang theory. For instance, the cosmic microwave background anisotropies (tiny temperature variations) align with predictions about the early universe's density fluctuations.

The Big Bang theory isn't perfect, and it doesn't explain everything. However, the vast amount of evidence across multiple areas of observation makes it the leading cosmological model for our universe's origin and evolution.

maxx

just a question: how do you know god didn't create the universe in the way that we observe it? Created it from the big bang onward, created everything to evolve? Aside from quoting something from the bible, you lack more proof than any theory. Evolution is a proven fact, for even the universe itself is evolving. Nothing stays the same, everything changes over time. @MrDebatePerson2

jack

MrDebatePerson2 said:

Here we go again. The Big Bang, I don't believe in it

Hello Mr:

If we had a clock that measured the knowledge spectrum, where knowing everything is 11:59 PM, and knowing nothing 12:01 AM, I'd say we're about 4:20 AM. 

In other words, there's heaps more to know about the universe than what we already know.

excon

MayCaesar

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

I know your faith will not allow you to look at this objectively, but an honest review of the scientific literature shows that there are serious problems with the Big Bang theory as currently understood.  These issues are not issues that only 'creationists' mention, but serious cosmologists have mentioned.  

1)  The singularity problem.  Simply put the math breaks down at the big bang.  That's a serious problem for a scientific theory.  There is no explanation for how the big bang could have begun.  There is no known scientific explanation that triggers inflation.  A beginning without a cause is a serious scientific problem.  What often happens is atheists appeal to magic (ie - quantum physics - which conveniently offers no math or proofs to show it is real).  

2) The wrong kind of galaxies in the early universe - Since the initial conditions would have only had helium, hydrogen and some trace amounts of lithium - we should find these at the furthest edges of the universe - we don't.  

3) The monopole problem - The intense heat of the initial conditions of the big bang should have created lots and lots of monopole particles/objects.  We haven't found them.

4)  The size of the earliest galaxies are too  large.  The theoretical calculations for the size of the earliest galaxies don't match reality.  The earliest galaxies and quasars are too massive and too bright to fit the theory.

5)  We can't find 96% of the stuff of the universe according to BB cosmology.  Dark matter and energy (CDM) is needed for observed rotation of galaxies, but we can't find it anywhere.

6) Even if we found the missing 96% of stuff theorized, the mass of the universe is way too small to fit with the calculations of inflation and the flatness problem of the universe.  This deals more with the theory of inflation that is often closely associated with the big bang theory.

7) Missing antimatter.  Theoretical models of the big bang produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.  A lot of anti-matter is missing.  

These are just a few of the dozens and dozens of known problems and inconsistencies with the big bang theory.   The big bang theory may prove to be true, but it will have to go through significant changes in the basic assumptions of the theory to fit with the evidence.

just_sayin

jack said:

MrDebatePerson2 said:

Here we go again. The Big Bang, I don't believe in it

Hello Mr:

If we had a clock that measured the knowledge spectrum, where knowing everything is 11:59 PM, and knowing nothing 12:01 AM, I'd say we're about 4:20 AM. 

In other words, there's heaps more to know about the universe than what we already know.

excon

It looks like most of the problems in your life were created with decisions you made at 420.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

an honest review of the scientific literature

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

I know your faith will not allow you to look at this objectively, but an honest review of the scientific literature shows that there are serious problems with the Big Bang theory as currently understood.  These issues are not issues that only 'creationists' mention, but serious cosmologists have mentioned.  

1)  The singularity problem.  Simply put the math breaks down at the big bang.  That's a serious problem for a scientific theory.  There is no explanation for how the big bang could have begun.  There is no known scientific explanation that triggers inflation.  A beginning without a cause is a serious scientific problem.  What often happens is atheists appeal to magic (ie - quantum physics - which conveniently offers no math or proofs to show it is real).  

2) The wrong kind of galaxies in the early universe - Since the initial conditions would have only had helium, hydrogen and some trace amounts of lithium - we should find these at the furthest edges of the universe - we don't.  

3) The monopole problem - The intense heat of the initial conditions of the big bang should have created lots and lots of monopole particles/objects.  We haven't found them.

4)  The size of the earliest galaxies are too  large.  The theoretical calculations for the size of the earliest galaxies don't match reality.  The earliest galaxies and quasars are too massive and too bright to fit the theory.

5)  We can't find 96% of the stuff of the universe according to BB cosmology.  Dark matter and energy (CDM) is needed for observed rotation of galaxies, but we can't find it anywhere.

6) Even if we found the missing 96% of stuff theorized, the mass of the universe is way too small to fit with the calculations of inflation and the flatness problem of the universe.  This deals more with the theory of inflation that is often closely associated with the big bang theory.

7) Missing antimatter.  Theoretical models of the big bang produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.  A lot of anti-matter is missing.  

These are just a few of the dozens and dozens of known problems and inconsistencies with the big bang theory.   The big bang theory may prove to be true, but it will have to go through significant changes in the basic assumptions of the theory to fit with the evidence.

Only someone who has no understanding of science at all would say that above. There is empirical evidence of the universe expanding as it's measurable and still going on. Lights from distant long since dead stars let's us look back through time and allows us to know the universe was much smaller billions of years ago, the universe cools as it expands and so on. Now no one knows all the dots there are to connect, or where they are yet, we may never know. But science doesn't assume a theory to attempt to 'fit' it to evidence. It hypothesizes a theory then collects evidence to see if it remains plausible as the evidence unfolds. Questions may arise, unknowns exists, pockets of the universe appears defiant to known observable laws of physics, never the less a theory remains a theory in science unless or until the evidence proves it to be highly not probable or possible given our current understanding. The big bang theory remains a theory because what evidence that has been discovered consistently supports the hypothesis over all. 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ; 

Maybe they even meant this: 

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao. 

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ; 

Maybe they even meant this: 

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao. 

Zeus,

Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:

The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:

1. Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2. Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.

3. Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.

4. Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.

5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.

6. Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.

These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.

It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar.  Good to know.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ; 

Maybe they even meant this: 

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao. 

Zeus,

Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:

The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:

1. Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2. Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.

3. Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.

4. Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.

5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.

6. Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.

These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.

It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar.  Good to know.

Which is of course part of the falsifying process I explained to you in my last post. Even with all that we don't know the one thing we do know is there is more evidence for the big bang than there is for god.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ; 

Maybe they even meant this: 

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao. 

Zeus,

Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:

The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:

1. Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2. Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.

3. Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.

4. Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.

5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.

6. Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.

These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.

It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar.  Good to know.

What we have here, folks, is a poisoning of the well. This is a preemptive ad hominem with the sole intention of discrediting the other party before they even say anything in return. With me, for example, just-sayin makes the false implicit claim that I always use AI to do my posts for me, thus implying that I cannot think for myself and/or am not genuine. Now that we have that red flag painted let's get to truth, facts, and reality. 

1. I have only posted a satirical comment about the Big Bang Theory sitcom in this thread. 
2. What MayCaesar did was post genuine scientific inquiry—he nor I made any arguments about the Big Bang theory. 
3. I haven't used AI here for a while, and when I have, I have admitted it. I also do not use the format that just-saying has suggested. Juleskorngold does use that format quite often, though (perhaps he thinks we are twins). As for me, in most cases, it has taken some human effort to get the AI to do what I want it to do, as opposed to just asking a question and then posting the output. 
4. Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy).  Moreover, after playing around with free and premium AI detectors (with deep scanning), I noticed that this can be detected at least among a few. But there is also, of course, a manual way to do this. It wouldn't be prudent to rely solely on automatic tools (AKA automation bias). 
5. Later, I will create a thread about how to detect AI content manually and a post in which everything I do will be my sole wording but designed deliberately to be detected as AI content by AI detectors. Hence, manual detection is probably also a good idea. PS: Humanizers are sh!t and a waste of money! 
6. Lastly, I mostly use AI for grammar and spelling checking, factual accuracy, logical validity, etc. But I don't just stop at AI; I also cross-reference with other sources depending on whether I want a formally casual or purely formal debate. If it's just casual, though, who cares?!

Note: If anyone feels the need to verify the above for AI content (it appears that just_saying now thinks I use AI in almost all of my posts) using AI detection, check out one or more of the following tools (it's usually a good idea to use more than one in case the others miss something):

• https://gptzero.me/
• https://copyleaks.com/it/
• https://www.zerogpt.com/
  
• https://detecting-ai.com/de/

I have left it to these four because while there are loads more, these are the three I have found to be the most robust in my recent personal experimentation with them. The premium versions, of course, will offer the most in-depth scanning. But you get what you pay for! 

Finally, even if someone has posted AI content, that is irrelevant to the validity of the content. Generally, dismissing or discrediting the validity of content predicated on its mere source is foolish. 

MayCaesar

I am lost here. What are you guys debating? I see constant references to me, but I do not see much connection between my original comment and what is happening here...

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ; 

Maybe they even meant this: 

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao. 

Zeus,

Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:

The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:

1. Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

2. Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.

3. Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.

4. Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.

5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.

6. Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.

These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.

It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar.  Good to know.

What we have here, folks, is a poisoning of the well. This is a preemptive ad hominem with the sole intention of discrediting the other party before they even say anything in return. With me, for example, just-sayin makes the false implicit claim that I always use AI to do my posts for me, thus implying that I cannot think for myself and/or am not genuine. Now that we have that red flag painted let's get to truth, facts, and reality. 

1. I have only posted a satirical comment about the Big Bang Theory sitcom in this thread. 
2. What MayCaesar did was post genuine scientific inquiry—he nor I made any arguments about the Big Bang theory. 
3. I haven't used AI here for a while, and when I have, I have admitted it. I also do not use the format that just-saying has suggested. Juleskorngold does use that format quite often, though (perhaps he thinks we are twins). As for me, in most cases, it has taken some human effort to get the AI to do what I want it to do, as opposed to just asking a question and then posting the output. 
4. Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy).  Moreover, after playing around with free and premium AI detectors (with deep scanning), I noticed that this can be detected at least among a few. But there is also, of course, a manual way to do this. It wouldn't be prudent to rely solely on automatic tools (AKA automation bias). 
5. Later, I will create a thread about how to detect AI content manually and a post in which everything I do will be my sole wording but designed deliberately to be detected as AI content by AI detectors. Hence, manual detection is probably also a good idea. PS: Humanizers are sh!t and a waste of money! 
6. Lastly, I mostly use AI for grammar and spelling checking, factual accuracy, logical validity, etc. But I don't just stop at AI; I also cross-reference with other sources depending on whether I want a formally casual or purely formal debate. If it's just casual, though, who cares?!

Note: If anyone feels the need to verify the above for AI content (it appears that just_saying now thinks I use AI in almost all of my posts) using AI detection, check out one or more of the following tools (it's usually a good idea to use more than one in case the others miss something):

• https://gptzero.me/
• https://copyleaks.com/it/
• https://www.zerogpt.com/
  
• https://detecting-ai.com/de/

I have left it to these four because while there are loads more, these are the three I have found to be the most robust in my recent personal experimentation with them. The premium versions, of course, will offer the most in-depth scanning. But you get what you pay for! 

Finally, even if someone has posted AI content, that is irrelevant to the validity of the content. Generally, dismissing or discrediting the validity of content predicated on its mere source is foolish. 

What we have here is a classic example of a strawman fallacy.



After both @MayCaesar and Zeus posted memes laughing at the claim  that there are some problems with the big bang theory as we know it, I posted an AI response tot he question Are there any problems with the big bang theory.  Zeus claimed this was a 'poisoning of the well'.  And accused me of somehow trying to undermine the use of AI.  This is an obvious strawman argument to divert attention that there are issues with the current big bang theory.

Zeus, you get, I just used AI, to confirm my point that there are several known problems with the big bang theory, and the fact is that in the last 2 years the number of findings that do not fit the predictions of the BB has grown exponentially.  Now solutions to these problems may or may not be found.  I don't really care, as it does not alter my view that God initiated the creation of the universe.  The method used does not matter to me. So, I'm not anti-big bang, nor am I anti-AI.  What I am opposed to is when someone posts AI generated content that does not advance the debate.  

MayCaesar did NOT post genuine scientific inquiry.  His meme said 'Hahaha U serious?"  PUH-lease.  That's not genuine scientific inquiry.  it is a dismissive meme.  

Zeus said  "Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy). "  Well, I did just use AI to show you that the points I made about problems with the big bang are being made by others.  That much is true.  I don't use AI often though, because as I point out, it gives way too generic responses.  I freely quote from other authoritative websites all the time though - if you accused me of that - I would indeed be guilty - but not 'disguising' AI content.  My exposure to AI computing is an introductory course in Watsonx - that's it.  That's not the area of IT I work in.  Definitely an interesting and growing field though.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

I am lost here. What are you guys debating? I see constant references to me, but I do not see much connection between my original comment and what is happening here...

Best I can tell Just_sayin complained about Zeus and Jules using ai to lay out some facts behind the big bang theory. You and Zeus made light of the situation. Just_sayin then used ai to make the same points he always does, science doesn't know everything, can't explain everything, as a point itself suggesting ai doesn't support the theory.... and somehow by Just's thinking making fun of his original complaints has become a strawman. I think. But I'm not all together sure on this one either.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

His meme said 'Hahaha U serious?"

Even this statement is a lie. Seriously, you cannot even accurately restate 3 words from a meme... I have another one for you, with no words, easier to process!

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

In hindsight I guess some of the way I acted in retaliation to the smear tactics was a bit childish. I should have just left it at pointing out the smear tactics, the fact that I haven't used ai in this thread, the fact that I have made no arguments in this thread yet, the fact that most of the time I don't us ai on this site (such as what was implied) and the fact that maycaesr made no arguments here either. 

In any case, this is/was a digression from being on topic. 

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

In hindsight I guess some of the way I acted in retaliation to the smear tactics was a bit childish. I should have just left it at pointing out the smear tactics, the fact that I haven't used ai here, the fact that I have made no arguments in this thread yet, the fact that I don't use always or even mostly copy ai content, and the fact that maycaesr made no arguments here either. 

In any case, this is/was a digression from being on topic. 

In my opinion it was the smear tactic that was childish and is what caused the sway away from the topic. Like you point out, you hadn't made any arguments in this thread and Maycaesar did post an inquiry, so there was really no reason to mention you when Just_sayin first complained about Jule's use of ai. For some reason it seems he just wanted to get your attention while expressing his disagreement with the use of ai. Moreover as you again alluded to, the content is what counts and at least you have an understanding of what you do post when you do actually make an argument. I've long since suspected Just of cut and pasting some arguments but failed to see how it supported what he was saying. Other then his basic claim, 'science doesn't know so god did it' that is. Point being he himself post data that's not a part of his internal knowledge base too. Thinking it brings him closer to demonstrating positive evidence of an assumed creative agent completely undetectable in all ways.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin, THE RUNAWAY from his primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bible's creation narratives,

What part of when I told you that before you disparage the Big Bang Theory, or any other notion to the existence of the Universe, earth, and creation of man 6000 years ago as your bible so states, didn't you understand when you are to explain your comical Creation narratives by your serial killer God Jesus first and formost?!  Remember BIBLE FOOL? Huh?

I answered your ever so wanting, and embarrassing for you, child-like refutations as shown in the links below, THAT YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM TO THIS DAY IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP!

Therefore, answer EACH AND EVERY ONE of the links below showing your primitive Bible's rendition of Creation!

BEGIN:

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178994/#Comment_178994

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178995/#Comment_178995

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178997/#Comment_178997

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178998/#Comment_178998

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178999/#Comment_178999

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179002/#Comment_179002

Lets see if the Bible STU-PID FOOL "just-saying" continues to RUN AWAY from these godly inspired links shown above where he has to answer them FIRST, before he questions scientific knowledge at this time of the universe and creation of man!

 TICKING CLOCK IN WAITING FOR "JUST_SAYIN" TO ANSWER:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsq0FiXjGHg

.