View Single Post
Old 01-07-2013, 12:20 PM   #1754
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $2120368
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
Ok and? What about 2 atheists one believes in the big bang and the other doesn't?
Well my guess would be something like this:

Atheist 1: Hey man, did you hear about this Big Bang Theory? It's pretty awesome.

Atheist 2: I don't think I believe it.

Atheist 1: Really? Well there's actually proof for it. You know when you're tuning your radio and there's static when you tune in between channels? Well that static is actually caused in part by the background radiation left over from the Big Bang. We can actually measure it. Here's how they do it.. On top of that, we can monitor the fluctuations in it over time.

Atheist 2: Hmmm.

Atheist 1: Seriously. And also astronomers can calculate the redshift of distant celestial bodies in all directions, and see evidence of homogeneity which also supports the Big Bang Theory. Here check out this data and the map that was created with the help of the Hubble telescope, and see for yourself.

Atheist 2: Interesting.

Atheist 1: Then there's the primordial nucleosynthesis that we can physically detect in the universe.

Atheist 2: What's that?

Atheist 1: Well, that would be helium, deuterium, lithium, and beryllium. These can only be produced when the universe was in a state of high temperature and density so great that protons and neutrons existed as free particles, not bound by a nucleus. This could only happen during the first few minutes of the Big Bang. Yet we can detect these things still today.

Atheist 2: This is actually pretty fascinating.

Atheist 1: No shit! And that's not all. There's also the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, the Tolman experiment, and the existence and detection of dark matter and energy. All these are different independent methods of observing and explaining the Big Bang.

Atheist 2: Well I have to admit, that is some pretty convincing evidence. Perhaps I'll look into this topic for myself, and consider the validity of this. You've intrigued me to reevaluate my position on this matter. And for that I thank you.
__________________
Posts: 25,462
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote