I guess I am on monopoles, thanks for the link. Most recent data I was aware of was a lower limit for proton decay out of japan. I will read up on it. Has it been reproduced?
I am not sure gravitational lensing is exactly the same as a gravity wave, if it was then observations in the early part of the last century would have resolved it. So sorry I don't believe you and think it is important to hunt for gravity waves. I admit is is strong evidence. Also close massive binary stars are consistent too. But as I understand it there are many, many closely equivalent theories which would be consistent with what we have observed. The elegance or beauty of a model is not evidence for it's reality. Until we observe it, we don't have direct evidence. There is no reason to treat science differently than other questions and every reason to hunt for proton decay and gravity waves and keep an open mind.
No the visitors center at the grand canyon DOES NOT support Noah, have you been there? There are discussions of radioactive dating of the strata and observed erosion rates. It is glaringly obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of years of history there and a flood is not consistent with any of it. Also observe the behavior of tar under even slight water pressure. It would NOT have sealed any cracks in the doomed box that the alleged god, Creator of the universe and all powerful, needed a man to make for him. So no, Noah is obviously BS to anyone with even a slightly functioning brain.
As for theory and definitions like that, there are shades of grey and uncertainty in science. It does not help to pretend there are not. Nor does a theory being supported by evidence mean that all theories are equally true. You really have to talk about specifics. We don't need the first few seconds of the big bang to prove or disprove any theology, they are not necessary for support of atheism, they are often obscuring more important things, like the simple science present at the visitors center of the grand canyon.
OR the fact that you knew about magnetic monopoles and I didn't could prove you are really the voice of athiesmo, great sky god of atheists. Or not. Given the claims on the other side, the more grounded in reality and simple thought the more convincing the argument. Magnetic monopoles don't seem to help much. Appeals to authority don't help, they just make the topic of this thread convincing to anyone who has stopped reading.
I am not sure gravitational lensing is exactly the same as a gravity wave, if it was then observations in the early part of the last century would have resolved it. So sorry I don't believe you and think it is important to hunt for gravity waves. I admit is is strong evidence. Also close massive binary stars are consistent too. But as I understand it there are many, many closely equivalent theories which would be consistent with what we have observed. The elegance or beauty of a model is not evidence for it's reality. Until we observe it, we don't have direct evidence. There is no reason to treat science differently than other questions and every reason to hunt for proton decay and gravity waves and keep an open mind.
No the visitors center at the grand canyon DOES NOT support Noah, have you been there? There are discussions of radioactive dating of the strata and observed erosion rates. It is glaringly obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of years of history there and a flood is not consistent with any of it. Also observe the behavior of tar under even slight water pressure. It would NOT have sealed any cracks in the doomed box that the alleged god, Creator of the universe and all powerful, needed a man to make for him. So no, Noah is obviously BS to anyone with even a slightly functioning brain.
As for theory and definitions like that, there are shades of grey and uncertainty in science. It does not help to pretend there are not. Nor does a theory being supported by evidence mean that all theories are equally true. You really have to talk about specifics. We don't need the first few seconds of the big bang to prove or disprove any theology, they are not necessary for support of atheism, they are often obscuring more important things, like the simple science present at the visitors center of the grand canyon.
OR the fact that you knew about magnetic monopoles and I didn't could prove you are really the voice of athiesmo, great sky god of atheists. Or not. Given the claims on the other side, the more grounded in reality and simple thought the more convincing the argument. Magnetic monopoles don't seem to help much. Appeals to authority don't help, they just make the topic of this thread convincing to anyone who has stopped reading.
