Why is it so easy to trigger a religious person?

@Pfuzylogic But not so easy to account for the evidence behind the Theory

@newjaninev2
You ran off the last time I saw you.
Have you learned to use your technical terms correctly this time. I was in tears last time dear with laughter.

@Pfuzylogic No idea what you’re talking about... but then again, neither have you.

So, let’s examine the evidence accounted for by the Big Bang

@Pfuzylogic Among which:

1. the expansion of the universe

2. the Cosmic Background Microwave Radioation

3. the Hydrogen-Helium Ratio

@newjaninev2
I am glad I triggered you Janine.

Just goes to show! 😗😉

Wassup @JBird did ‘ems get triggered too!

@Pfuzylogic But you didn’t trigger someone who “believes in the Big Bang fairy tale”.

Instead, you allowed me to demonstrate the evidential basis for the Theory - an evidential basis for which you have so far been unable to supply a response.

@newjaninev2 And your theory is akin to flat earth theory. You are too funny with your nonsense. Try do some reading.

@Pfuzylogic So.

A woman gives you stone cold facts from astrophysics-- and that's "triggered"?

Sounds like you have a bigger problem with women than you do the big bang.

@newjaninev2
You provided a very old belief that has been outdated since new data and evidence. I would go further but you always get lost.

@CopperCicada
Triggered much?

Sling the mud when you can’t even explain your own job in science.

@Pfuzylogic You really want to talk E-modes and B-modes in the polarization of the CMB? If I thought you really did, I'd go there, and we could talk about how one separates signals of polarization from signals of inflation. But I don't think you do.

But my comment was just from... you keep saying this woman, @newjaninev2, is triggered all the time. And I just see her dropping facts. WTF man. WTF.

@Pfuzylogic I provided the evidential basis for the current Theory.

You provided... nothing.

Quelle surprise!

@CopperCicada
You normally throw terms like “gravitational lensing” around.
I’m surprised you didn’t speak off the peak modes in the rarefication patterns of matter in the universe.
The Lady doesn’t need help and she didn’t present facts but theories.

[b][u][c=#BF0000]i hope you know the difference of theories and facts.
I know the Poster doesn’t [/c][/u][/b]

@newjaninev2
Thank you...you didn’t provide facts or evidence, you just provided models of theories. I’m glad you stood up for yourself because cicadaboy thinks you aren’t smart enough.

@Pfuzylogic Well. Gravitational lensing is experimentally verifiable. I wouldn't bring it up in the context of the big bang as that is really more appropriate to black holes.

As for: [i]peak modes in the rarefication patterns of matter in the universe.[/i] That's some shit you made up.

Yea. She can take care of herself. But dude. WTF. Here is the exchange:

[image removed by staff]

@CopperCicada
Typical of you...grow up.

@Pfuzylogic [quote]the difference of theories and facts[/quote]

[b]Fact[/b]: the universe is expanding

[b]Fact[/b]: In every direction within the observable universe there is Background Cosmic Microwave Radiation (in fact, it is an important component of the term ‘observable universe’).

[b]Fact[/b]: The predicted hydrogen-helium ratio as a result of the Big Bang is among the most accurate prediction made from any scientific Theory. Signe Riemer-Sørensen and Espen Sem Jenssen (2017) examinations of different gas clouds lined up with different quasars have determined that physical reality agrees with theoretical prediction to ±0.00006%

Was there anything else? Perhaps you have a Theory that [i]better[/i] accounts for these facts and allows us to make [i]more accurate[/i] predictions> Is that the case? Do you have such a Theory?

Well, do you...

Fact: the universe is supposedly 93 billion light years in diameter.
They have no idea how it is so large in so little time.

Fact: We have only seen 1/250 of the universe.

Fact: The baryonic material such as hydrogen and helium make up less that 4 percent of all matter and energy

Fact: This Big Bang Theory started in 1931 when they just started learning of galaxies

Fact: it expands and yet they see no center

Fact: I have a few more but who cares.

@Pfuzylogic So, no better Theory, huh?

[quote] They have no idea how it is so large in so little time[/quote]

This is because of the Inflationary Epoch (that’s the technical term you confused with expansion, a while back. Do you see the importance of technical terms now?) at around 10∧−32 seconds. It’s also when the four forces were able to come into existence (because they require relativity, which in turn requires spacetime). The Inflaionary Epoch increased the linear size of the universe by more than 60 'e-folds, or a factor of ~10^26 in only a small fraction of a second.

The universe is still expanding today, which means that objects which are now up to 46.5 billion light-years away can still be seen in their distant past, because in the past when their light was emitted, they were much closer to the Earth.

So now ’they’ may have ’no idea’... but at least you do.

[quote]We have only seen 1/250 of the universe[/quote]

Try inserting ‘observable’ into that claim (now do you see the importance of precision?)

as for the rest... what does that have to do with anything? (Note that the universe is not expanding out from a centre; rather, the whole universe is expanding and doing so equally at all places)

@newjaninev2 Your pet theory is almost 200 years out of date!!!! Any theory is better than the one you have. It is a joke! The founder of your religion didn't even have clue as to what a cell was nor how things worked in nature. But you hold on to said nonsense like it is proof positive. The only proof positive is that you are a clueless hack and a troll with ZERO understanding of science or life. Calling you and your wonderkind here on SW Flat Earthers is being cruel to flat eathers everywhere. At least most of them know that their theory is a joke. You.... not so much.

@hippyjoe1955 and you think your religion is always true to date? You're the one with zero understanding of science, atheism, religion or anything and you try to sound like you know it by twisting its meaning. You change your tactics when each one of them fails and you blame others for it. You mock everyone with your made up logic. Guess what, no one is stupid enough to believe your blunder.

@newjaninev2 @JBird
As we know that JBird knows her science 🤭.
I can see that you are still triggered by your past incorrect use of terms which you are attributing to me. Might as well misrepresent like the scientists you are representing. You still didn’t sufficiently explain why matter moved faster than the speed of light.

@Pfuzylogic firstly, I wasn't talking to you. That conversation is unrelated to you. Secondly, I believe that there are things out there that we can't explain or science can't explain yet. But it doesn't mean the theories given by scientists are always wrong. Thirdly, yes, I know my science, though if it won't be that extensive as you or @newjanine. At least, I don't tell everyone that atheists have religion like someone else (hippyjoe)

@JBird The problem is not that things can’t be explained. The problem is that you don’t understand.

HippyJoe is very good.
It pleases God when we have Faith.

@Pfuzylogic I said can't be explained yet, not understanding. The actual problem is you're afraid to accept the unknown. You said that universe is not expanding because you can't see it. Let me ask you, no one in the world have seen God physically. If you applied the same logic of universe expansion, then God doesn't exist too. How's that for understanding science?


Yeah, Joe is good, his logic on science and on God are hilarious.