Poll: Americans skeptical of "Big Bang"

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

I guess it's a good thing we don't poll the masses for truth, especially in the matters of science. Aren't there a fair amount of Americans that also think the Sun revolves around the Earth?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything coming from NPR.  NPR isn't much better than the Cartoon Network.

 

Could you elaborate?  Seems like you are just being mean.

 

I could but this is not a political thread. 

then why comment in the first place?

 

Because I can.  

[Bonky]

I don't think there's an conspiracy that NPR is making up the survey results. NPR had nothing to do with the survey, it was the NSF that handled the poll. That being said, I have to think that some of the folks who said "the sun revolves around the earth" had more of an issue with reading comprehension. What that percentage is I'm not sure. Still, I think it's safe to say that some people actually don't know that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

To me, when we poll society and find out people don't trust a scientific theory; it shows me perhaps a lack of scientific education/understanding in our society. It doesn't say much about the veracity of the theory itself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yeah, it probably was a case of reading comprehension and people may have misread the question and got their wires crossed.  I don't know of anyone who believes the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it.

 

And the pollsters probably knew or at least suspected the same thing, but the thing is they published the results anyway whether the results were accurate or not.  This is the kind of dishonest stuff I have noted we can always expect from the Left.

 

Questioning the Big Bang which is not even close to being proven and is not settled science doesn't reflect a lack of scientific education.  It means that people think for themselves and don't necessarily buy into the infallibility of science and they don't just swallow everything they are told they must accept as fact, no questions asked.   People are not yet as indoctrinated and are not the obedient mindless drones the scientific community would like for them to be.

[Schouwenaars]

proof is only proof if one accepts it as prove. for me, there is more than enough prove for the big bang. it does not even come to my mind anymore to doubt anymore. i have seen too much evidence, wich is in my eyes correct evidence.

[Guest shiloh357]

proof is only proof if one accepts it as prove. for me, there is more than enough prove for the big bang. it does not even come to my mind anymore to doubt anymore. i have seen too much evidence, wich is in my eyes correct evidence.

No, proof has a specific definition.   There is nothing remotely close to being proof for the Big Bang.  You have seen enough of what you think is evidence to convince you, but you have NEVER seen proof as no proof exists.

[Schouwenaars]

wikipedia is pretty accurate. look at all the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

it's a pretty waterclosed theory.

and i can tell you that the most smartest and greatest geniusses of the last centurty mostly approved the theory, like werner heisenberg, erwin shrödinger, stephen hawking, higgs, ... and so many others.

and they studied and developped the very core of physics and know everything about it. 

i would rather believe them over a bunch of little scientists who would say different.

and with proof i mean accepting proof. it's only proof for you if you believe it's correct. otherwise it's no proof for you.

[Guest shiloh357]

wikipedia is pretty accurate. look at all the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

it's a pretty waterclosed theory.

and i can tell you that the most smartest and greatest geniusses of the last centurty mostly approved the theory, like werner heisenberg, erwin shrödinger, stephen hawking, higgs, ... and so many others.

and they studied and developped the very core of physics and know everything about it. 

i would rather believe them over a bunch of little scientists who would say different.

and with proof i mean accepting proof. it's only proof for you if you believe it's correct. otherwise it's no proof for you.

Wikipedia is a very questionable source for information as it can be edited any time by anyone on the user end.

[Fez]

proof is only proof if one accepts it as prove. for me, there is more than enough prove for the big bang. it does not even come to my mind anymore to doubt anymore. i have seen too much evidence, wich is in my eyes correct evidence.

Yes but you just told us earlier that it was what you were taught in school, so your opinion would be biased by that no?

 

As to seeing the evidence? How old did you say you were? 

[Schouwenaars]

 

proof is only proof if one accepts it as prove. for me, there is more than enough prove for the big bang. it does not even come to my mind anymore to doubt anymore. i have seen too much evidence, wich is in my eyes correct evidence.

Yes but you just told us earlier that it was what you were taught in school, so your opinion would be biased by that no?

 

As to seeing the evidence? How old did you say you were? 

 

 

i was told that in school, yes. but don't even think a second i just accept everything they learn me at school. i really thought much about this, and actually everything that is controversional.

 

and i have read many books about astronomy, and i watched many many documentarys, so i think i have seen enough to conclude something for myself.

 

and you should keep my age outside this. knowledge doesn't come always with aging. nor does maturity.

[Schouwenaars]

 

wikipedia is pretty accurate. look at all the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

it's a pretty waterclosed theory.

and i can tell you that the most smartest and greatest geniusses of the last centurty mostly approved the theory, like werner heisenberg, erwin shrödinger, stephen hawking, higgs, ... and so many others.

and they studied and developped the very core of physics and know everything about it. 

i would rather believe them over a bunch of little scientists who would say different.

and with proof i mean accepting proof. it's only proof for you if you believe it's correct. otherwise it's no proof for you.

Wikipedia is a very questionable source for information as it can be edited any time by anyone on the user end.

 

 

if you doubt all the refereneces, go ahead. 

wikipedia is pretty accurate and neutral. it just describes the theory, and it adds the criticism about it.

if you search for creationsm, it's accurate too. and neutral. it just describes, it doesn't judges or choses sides.