• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Could autistic teen disprove the big bang theory?

VanceMack said:
Its rather comical that you hold religious beliefs regarding the creation of the cosmos in such disregard, while at the same time you hold faith in the exact same belief system, sans the finger of God.
Click to expand...

I actually have no religious beliefs, you must have me mistaken for someone else. No matter was created during the big bang.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I actually have no religious beliefs, you must have me mistaken for someone else. No matter was created during the big bang.
Click to expand...

The 'big bang' is nothing more than a constantly evolving theory, but at its best, you must take it on faith that all the matter in the cosmos just suddenly 'existed'. The source of the 'big bang' is taken on faith. The dense massis taken on faith that 14 billion years ago expanded to the cosmos. Matter...dark matter...energy...its all take on faith as a starting point.
 
Quag said:
Article is 4 years old. Has this kid made any progress or is this just one of those pointless articles that promises something great is just around the corner but somehow that future never seems to arrive?
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia...


Jacob L. "Jake" Barnett (born May 26, 1998) is an American physics student and child prodigy.[1] According to a memoir penned by his mother, he was diagnosed with autism when he was 2 years old and was homeschooled by his parents.[2][3][4]

Barnett was admitted to the Perimeter Scholars International in 2013, a one year masters degree program at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario.[5] At the age of 15, he was the youngest student admitted to the program[6] since its inaugural class four years prior in 2009.[7] He completed the program in 2014[8] and has subsequently been listed as a doctoral student at the Perimeter Institute.[9]
 
VanceMack said:
The 'big bang' is nothing more than a constantly evolving theory, but at its best, you must take it on faith that all the matter in the cosmos just suddenly 'existed'. The source of the 'big bang' is taken on faith. The dense massis taken on faith that 14 billion years ago expanded to the cosmos. Matter...dark matter...energy...its all take on faith as a starting point.
Click to expand...

Actually. no. This is this little thing that makes that false. It is known as 'observation and facts'. The conclusions might be incorrect, but the observations and facts came first
 
RAMOSS said:
Actually. no. This is this little thing that makes that false. It is known as 'observation and facts'. The conclusions might be incorrect, but the observations and facts came first
Click to expand...
Horse****. Everything about the origins of the cosmos is speculation based on what we know 'today'. The Big Bang theory is just that.

Go ahead...commit. Tell me you 'know' what the energy source was that sparked the big bang and that you know of the origins of all matter compressed into this incredibly dense, minuscule, virtually nonexistent 'matter'.

You 'know' nothing. 100 years from now they will marvel at the things we have taught and people have accepted as 'fact'.
 
VanceMack said:
The 'big bang' is nothing more than a constantly evolving theory, but at its best, you must take it on faith that all the matter in the cosmos just suddenly 'existed'. The source of the 'big bang' is taken on faith. The dense massis taken on faith that 14 billion years ago expanded to the cosmos. Matter...dark matter...energy...its all take on faith as a starting point.
Click to expand...

No.

1, Nobody knows what started the universe.

2, I can show you evidence that the universe is at least 12 billion years old. It is very easy to see and understand. Beyond that I take it on faith, or have confidence that, the scientists are telling me the truth that their best guess is... Or that they think that... Or that they know that....

3, The fact that you do not have a clue about the physics of the universe does not stop you telling me that you do know what it was that caused it all even though you have no evidence to support that. You are therefore somebody I consider to be not fully sentient or that you are unable to understand what truth and honesty are, or that you have chosen to live in that mind set. Sadly you are not on your own in that category.
 
VanceMack said:
Horse****. Everything about the origins of the cosmos is speculation based on what we know 'today'. The Big Bang theory is just that.

Go ahead...commit. Tell me you 'know' what the energy source was that sparked the big bang and that you know of the origins of all matter compressed into this incredibly dense, minuscule, virtually nonexistent 'matter'.

You 'know' nothing. 100 years from now they will marvel at the things we have taught and people have accepted as 'fact'.
Click to expand...

There are two things that I see from the emotional reaction you are giving. 1) You do not understand how the scientific method works and 2) you want to put science in the same category as religion.

Now, the 'source' of the energy could very well be that the universe is 'eternal' (what ever that means', and the 'source' is a quantum fluctuation. That's the thing about science.. it says "This is hypothesis, or theory, lets see if we can test it , and see if we are right'

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
 
VanceMack said:
The 'big bang' is nothing more than a constantly evolving theory, but at its best, you must take it on faith that all the matter in the cosmos just suddenly 'existed'. The source of the 'big bang' is taken on faith. The dense massis taken on faith that 14 billion years ago expanded to the cosmos. Matter...dark matter...energy...its all take on faith as a starting point.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. We know that all the matter in the universe is moving away from a central point. We could speculate about what started it, but it would be just that: speculation. I don't recall any scientist claiming to know why the big bang happened. Science has no problem admitting there are things we don't know, religion however claims to already know everything. The catalyst of the big bang is completely and utterly irrelevant to my life, so I do not care.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No.

1, Nobody knows what started the universe.

2, I can show you evidence that the universe is at least 12 billion years old. It is very easy to see and understand. Beyond that I take it on faith, or have confidence that, the scientists are telling me the truth that their best guess is... Or that they think that... Or that they know that....

3, The fact that you do not have a clue about the physics of the universe does not stop you telling me that you do know what it was that caused it all even though you have no evidence to support that. You are therefore somebody I consider to be not fully sentient or that you are unable to understand what truth and honesty are, or that you have chosen to live in that mind set. Sadly you are not on your own in that category.
Click to expand...

I am someone that believes it all started somehow and that belief is not inconsistent with faith. No more...no less.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Actually, no. We know that all the matter in the universe is moving away from a central point. We could speculate about what started it, but it would be just that: speculation. I don't recall any scientist claiming to know why the big bang happened. Science has no problem admitting there are things we don't know, religion however claims to already know everything. The catalyst of the big bang is completely and utterly irrelevant to my life, so I do not care.
Click to expand...
'could' speculate? No...you MUST speculate. And there is nothing wrong with that. It opens doors to different discovery. The point being it is beyond retarded for someone like you to say "Hah! You believe in God" only to turn right around and say "Hah! I believe that all matter in the cosmos just magically existed and some unknown force cause an energy blast of some unknown magnitude."
 
RAMOSS said:
There are two things that I see from the emotional reaction you are giving. 1) You do not understand how the scientific method works and 2) you want to put science in the same category as religion.

Now, the 'source' of the energy could very well be that the universe is 'eternal' (what ever that means', and the 'source' is a quantum fluctuation. That's the thing about science.. it says "This is hypothesis, or theory, lets see if we can test it , and see if we are right'

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
Click to expand...
'emotional response'

Do you know how pathetic that is as a debate tactic? :lamo

I see you are stuck on 'could be' and speculation. Of course you are.
 
VanceMack said:
'could' speculate? No...you MUST speculate. And there is nothing wrong with that. It opens doors to different discovery. The point being it is beyond retarded for someone like you to say "Hah! You believe in God" only to turn right around and say "Hah! I believe that all matter in the cosmos just magically existed and some unknown force cause an energy blast of some unknown magnitude."
Click to expand...

Why must we speculate? Are you dictating what I must do? It may make you feel better to make up stories about how it all could've happened, but I prefer not to speculate. I take facts as they come in and my worldview is reshaped accordingly. If you can prove that a wizard made it all happen, please, by all means, provide that evidence.

It is a fact that all of the matter in the universe is speeding away from the same point. You can assign a magical diety to that if you wish, but don't try to act like it's equivalent to scientific inquiry.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why must we speculate? Are you dictating what I must do? It may make you feel better to make up stories about how it all could've happened, but I prefer not to speculate. I take facts as they come in and my worldview is reshaped accordingly. If you can prove that a wizard made it all happen, please, by all means, provide that evidence.

It is a fact that all of the matter in the universe is speeding away from the same point. You can assign a magical diety to that if you wish, but don't try to act like it's equivalent to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...
No...of course not. That would be arrogant. I'm dictating what SCIENTISTS must do. YOU merely have to read and have faith in the words they write and theories they offer.
 
VanceMack said:
No...of course not. That would be arrogant. I'm dictating what SCIENTISTS must do. YOU merely have to read and have faith in the words they write and theories they offer.
Click to expand...

You're dictating what they "must" do, and yet no one is doing it. You poor thing, nobody is doing what you want them to. Come on scientists, make up a story with no evidence that makes you feel better! You can do it if you try!
 
VanceMack said:
'emotional response'

Do you know how pathetic that is as a debate tactic? :lamo

I see you are stuck on 'could be' and speculation. Of course you are.
Click to expand...

"Could be a god" is not speculation?
 
VanceMack said:
...you must take it on faith that all the matter in the cosmos just suddenly 'existed'.
Click to expand...

Not really.

You can accept that "X" is the best possible explanation that is currently available without looking past it or any further in to it.

The Big Bang only seeks to explain the Universe as it currently is, it says nothing about what came before this Universe or where the mattter that currently makees up the Universe came from.

Maybe some day there will be a scientific theory that seeks to describe such a thing.

The Big Bang certainly isn't it.
 
zyzygy said:
"Could be a god" is not speculation?
Click to expand...
By all means...point to where I have suggested it is based on ANYTHING other than faith.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're dictating what they "must" do, and yet no one is doing it. You poor thing, nobody is doing what you want them to. Come on scientists, make up a story with no evidence that makes you feel better! You can do it if you try!
Click to expand...

That whole 'you are a faith based creature' really stings, doesnt it? :lamo
 
Goshin said:
From Wikipedia...


Jacob L. "Jake" Barnett (born May 26, 1998) is an American physics student and child prodigy.[1] According to a memoir penned by his mother, he was diagnosed with autism when he was 2 years old and was homeschooled by his parents.[2][3][4]

Barnett was admitted to the Perimeter Scholars International in 2013, a one year masters degree program at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario.[5] At the age of 15, he was the youngest student admitted to the program[6] since its inaugural class four years prior in 2009.[7] He completed the program in 2014[8] and has subsequently been listed as a doctoral student at the Perimeter Institute.[9]
Click to expand...

Yeah I googled him as well and found nothing new about his work as pertains to the 4 year old article. Newest stuff seems to be what you psoted. I wish him well in his studies.
 
VanceMack said:
Ask RA...He's the one oozing the butthurt.
Click to expand...


How odd. I merely correct your misconception, and you start talking about 'oozing butthurt'. That again is using emotionally charged language without semantic value. It seems to be a bit of projection there.
 
Luftwaffe said:
People seem to forget that autism is just a medical diagnosis for "Weird"

That's why I laugh when whack-job people get scared about increasing autism or something.

When I was younger, I kid you not, I probably would have been diagnosed with autism. I would ****ing pet bumblebees for hours like I had nothing better to do...

Good for this kid though even though it's kind of an old article and the kid has yet to do anything other than have a big mouth :D
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It isn't just weirdness.

I don't know much about other forms of Autism, but people with Asperger's have severe trouble with nonverbal communication skills, such as understanding body language or reading facial expressions. Unlike normal autism, this is coupled with an average to above-average aptitude for verbal communication. There is an obsession with routine and most of their interest is consumed with one or more topics that fascinate them. Motor skills are often delayed. Their speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.

The three main mental functions impaired by Asperger's are central coherence (seeing the big picture, essentially), executive function (impulse control and decision-making processes), and theory of mind(conceptualizing other's motivations, beliefs, feelings, etc.).
 
RAMOSS said:
How odd. I merely correct your misconception, and you start talking about 'oozing butthurt'. That again is using emotionally charged language without semantic value. It seems to be a bit of projection there.
Click to expand...
Nice try. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom