Leaderboard

From a different perspective, it appeared you were badgering a newbie, @Benjamin Karl, who was not making a claim but rather requesting opinions on the claims made in a video. Whose points he courteously summarized when asked to. While he could be encouraged to dig deeper for other sources, I am not sure that your tone was that of a friendly guide in that quest.

From the same Latin root as words like paisano or peasant. I lived in a predominantly Italian neighborhood for a couple years and heard "paisano!" used a lot as a friendly greeting among Italo-Americans. It no longer carries the meaning of rustic, just means fellow countryman.

Harder to pronounce, though. Leeuwenhoek is never referenced in a Queen song.

It seems Van Leeuwenhoek's observations of single celled protozoa were not taken seriously at first by the English Royal Society (to whom he had written, in Dutch), but within a couple of years it had sent over a deputation to review his findings and accepted them. So it doesn't seem to be a terribly convincing example of "the Establishment" rejecting science. What science?

This makes no sense. And in fact it's usually the other way: The theory determines what to measure. Einstein famously pointed it out. It is because we have a theory that we can tell deviations of rotational velocity of galaxies from expected behaviour betrays excess density (DM), and certain measurements on supernovas confirms accelerated expansion. Those are parameters in the theory. That's why we expect those patterns, and we find them. Only rarely an experimental discovery comes completely from out of the blue. Although it does happen from time to time. An example from physics is the neutrino. I really think at this point you should take some time out for reflection.

It is not hate at all. It is ridicule.

No one claimed everything just popped into existence. The conversation was about the expansion of the universe, not the origin of the universe. Seriously, you should either try to learn what people are telling you, or go learn some science on your own and THEN come here to discuss it. As it is you are simply a train wreck.

Astounded again. Nobody (in science) claims this. It's a strawman that creationists argue against.

That is simply astounding from someone who has twice in this thread made snarky references to "common knowledge".

That’s just silly Source: me, who worked for ~25 years at the US Naval Observatory in the precise time department

Evidence for both has been observed, though we don’t know what they are. I don’t “know” they are not one and the same, but I can say there is no evidence that they are, so there is no justification for claiming a connection. Whereas you are asserting they are connected, without evidence. That is what is known as “making shit up”, which is not allowed in science.

iNow is a forcing in the evolution of letters. Alluding to another contentious conversation elsewhere: forcings are inherently the designers of what happens to mutations.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/us-moon-lander-suffers-anomaly-putting-lunar-mission-risk A U.S. lunar lander that launched from Florida on Monday in hopes of becoming the first American craft to touch down on the moon in more than 50 years is now suffering from a "critical loss of propellant," putting its mission in jeopardy, its maker says. Astrobotic Technology says its Peregrine Lunar Lander began the day lifting off on a United Launch Alliance Vulcan rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 2:18 a.m. before separating approximately 310 miles above Earth about 50 minutes later. "Astrobotic-built avionics systems, including the primary command and data handling unit, as well as the thermal, propulsion, and power controllers, all powered on and performed as expected," the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based company said. "Unfortunately, an anomaly then occurred, which prevented Astrobotic from achieving a stable sun-pointing orientation," according to the company. Astrobotic says the lander is designed to have an onboard solar panel facing the sun for "maximum power generation" while traveling in orbit.

The Church potlucks are better, too.

Was he just asking the same thing on two forums?

! Moderator Note We don't review videos. If you want to discuss the rise of paganism, we can do it without padding the views on a YT video. Videos are notoriously difficult to discuss scientifically in a forum like this, and nobody has the time to watch and try to catch all the inconsistencies. If you're only here to support the video, I need to close this, but if you're truly interested in discussing the rise of paganism, you need to present your arguments here, and not require that folks watch a video in order to participate. Also, we'll do it civilly or we won't do it at all. We attack ideas here, not people.

Apparently I have been given a "Moderator Note" for 'preaching. To preach is to EARNESTLY ADVOCATE for whatever the cause is. I find this to be discrimination on SCIENCE found. Regardless of what or where it comes from, if it is proven, it should be considered Science still. Anyone to mention the GOD particle should be considered religious then, and we know this isn't the case. Consequences should be given to primitive thinking people simply wanting their ears itched by what their primitive professors taught them. They are all bound to the culture they face. The Science I spoke of is beyond our very culture, beyond our very selves.

Or in a simulation very little, almost no mass would be needed and logical laws need not apply. LOL are you literally claiming that everything just popped into existence at the same time? Sounds like the moment that the big computer in the sky was turned on. How do you explain the evidence of inflation if everything just popped into existence? See in reality there are no holes, because everything is a hole which leaves just emptiness.

Statistically there is exactly a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the Earth is not ground zero of the big bang. In fact, the Earth being the center of the universe is what the Catholic Church believed before Galileo proved them wrong. That said a 13 billion year wide void should be visible

How was that determined when neither have been observed? Seriously I am asking If it must act as you say, then there is no theory as it becomes a proven fact and the theory vanishes. Since no one knows for sure and there are no musts it remains theory. Where do you suppose that the 95% of dark matter and energy is hiding? Where is ground zero of the big bang? Shouldn't there be a void 13 or more billion years wide void with an outward moving ring of mass? and why would the CMB be coming from every direction and not all moving away from the source?

Are you claiming that everything just popping into existence at once like you claimed is science? I suppose that you also consider a lightning bolt hitting a dead lifeless pond creating DNA the most powerful molecular computer code in the known universe like Darwin who never saw a single gene claimed, to be science as well?

Darwin claimed that a lightning bolt hitting a pond created life, in his letter to Hooker. In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond. The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871. Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E. My dear Hooker, ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. You are correct however that this is NOT science as we know it now Actually mathematics works equally well in either direction, meaning that if the universe is inflating all one needs to do is retrace the trajectories of mass to find the zero point. I wonder if you are old enough to remember the big crunch, which was predicted to happen after the big bang ran out of energy and the universe began retracting as gravity began pulling things in reverse. Do you remember when that was settled science. This theory pretty much ended when the speed of expansion was determined to be increasing not slowing however, which was said to be caused by dark matter and energy which represents 95% of all mass and energy. So imagine that 95% of mount Everest is missing, where would it be? If you do not believe me that no one has observed either dark matter or energy, all you need to do is to provide the name of the first person to view these. See reality is not determined by what you or I believe, or do not believe. All that you can do here is to choose one theory over another. There are internet links on Bigfoot too. Really