pretty sure science is fiction
its made up theories by human race to “explain” things, fiction literally means made up
religion on the other hand is all real events that happened and all is documented too so its a non fiction retelling of actual history

k i got baited

and i think in a way science might even be hoping for the supernatural
because i dontthink trying to calculate the exact path an asteroid or planet or whatever would take for example is very natural
this definitely isnt what we as humans should be putting effort into because we were never meant to do dumb s*** like that

according to pseudo scientists were all mammals so tell me how is it natural for a mammal to grow organs out of petri dishes or go to space or whatever??

? so you cant refute my point?

Science ain’t even real brah

No reason to discuss this with niggas on ktt

pretty sure science is fiction. its made up theories by human race to “explain” things, fiction literally means made up

you're using "made up" in two different contexts in this passage. "made up" in the context of science in your sentence means "constructed" in the same vein as a building being made up of stone. "Made up" in the context of fiction means fabrication of imaginary elements which means that the basis of fictional work is rooted in the mind of the creator rather than universably observable evidence.

religion on the other hand is all real events that happened and all is documented too so its a non fiction retelling of actual history

also wrong. it document real events but a lot of it is not true. Is there tangible evidence of Moses speaking to the burning bush outside of holy text? no.

is there tangible evidence for the big bang being real? no, in favt according to rules of physics big bangs are impossible

exactly, made up so dumb people with too much time can “study” these works of fiction to look smart and cope

the big bang is once again a theory. Not everything is accepted fact because it can't be proven through experimentation, even if its a prevalent way of thinking among the scientific community. That's what a theory is.

The reason the big bang is even an accepted theory is BECAUSE of physics

As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang theory. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. Proposed solutions to some of the problems in the Big Bang model have revealed new mysteries of their own. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflationary theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven. What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang theory still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists.

Baryon asymmetry
It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter. It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and antibaryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. A process called baryogenesis was hypothesized to account for the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied. These require that baryon number is not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium. All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effects are not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.

Dark energy
Measurements of the redshift–magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy".

Dark energy, though speculative, solves numerous problems. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density. Since theory suggests that dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy also helps to explain two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic ruler.

Negative pressure is believed to be a property of vacuum energy, but the exact nature and existence of dark energy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Results from the WMAP team in 2008 are in accordance with a universe that consists of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, 4.6% regular matter and less than 1% neutrinos. According to theory, the energy density in matter decreases with the expansion of the universe, but the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as the universe expands. Therefore, matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.

The dark energy component of the universe has been explained by theorists using a variety of competing theories including Einstein's cosmological constant but also extending to more exotic forms of quintessence or other modified gravity schemes. A cosmological constant problem, sometimes called the "most embarrassing problem in physics", results from the apparent discrepancy between the measured energy density of dark energy, and the one naively predicted from Planck units.

continued:

Dark matter
During the 1970s and the 1980s, various observations showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter has always been controversial, it is inferred by various observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.

Indirect evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, as no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.

Additionally, there are outstanding problems associated with the currently favored cold dark matter model which include the dwarf galaxy problem and the cuspy halo problem. Alternative theories have been proposed that do not require a large amount of undetected matter, but instead modify the laws of gravity established by Newton and Einstein; yet no alternative theory has been as successful as the cold dark matter proposal in explaining all extant observations.

Horizon problem
The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a universe of finite age this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact. The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause wider regions to have the same temperature:191–202

A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the universe at some very early period (before baryogenesis). During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the particle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the observable universe are well inside each other's particle horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact before the beginning of inflation:180–186

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the universe.95:207 Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian, which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB: sec 6

If inflation occurred, exponential expansion would push large regions of space well beyond our observable horizon: 180–186

A related issue to the classic horizon problem arises because in most standard cosmological inflation models, inflation ceases well before electroweak symmetry breaking occurs, so inflation should not be able to prevent large-scale discontinuities in the electroweak vacuum since distant parts of the observable universe were causally separate when the electroweak epoch ended.

continued again

Magnetic monopoles
The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand unified theories predicted topological defects in space that would manifest as magnetic monopoles. These objects would be produced efficiently in the hot early universe, resulting in a density much higher than is consistent with observations, given that no monopoles have been found. This problem is also resolved by cosmic inflation, which removes all point defects from the observable universe, in the same way that it drives the geometry to flatness.

Flatness problem

The overall geometry of the universe is determined by whether the Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1. Shown from top to bottom are a closed universe with positive curvature, a hyperbolic universe with negative curvature and a flat universe with zero curvature.
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (FLRW). The universe may have positive, negative, or zero spatial curvature depending on its total energy density. Curvature is negative if its density is less than the critical density; positive if greater; and zero at the critical density, in which case space is said to be flat.

The problem is that any small departure from the critical density grows with time, and yet the universe today remains very close to flat. Given that a natural timescale for departure from flatness might be the Planck time, 10−43 seconds, the fact that the universe has reached neither a heat death nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires an explanation. For instance, even at the relatively late age of a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the density of the universe must have been within one part in 1014 of its critical value, or it would not exist as it does today.

whenever science cant explain something they make up some dumb s*** like “dark energy” ( ) to add a new plot element to their universal fanfic

people itt disliking science

they're both manmade, one was a form of control laid down upon us and the other searches for empirical reasoning. When religion can't explain something they say to trust in God, when science can't we admit it and then search for the answer.

Anything can be seen as a coping mechanism if it's viewed as beneficial in some fashion.

scienxe is a tested way to rxplain what we see with our own eyes... you can choose to believe it or not...

its tested theory... so its proven to work ... if u dont like it make your own

i mean in some ways it could he used as one

but religion is of course one

Evolution hoax?

ppl don't understand that the term theory is science's way of being open minded. We are literally just saying that this is what we think happened, but if for some reason in the future with better technology we find out something else, we can add an addendum.

i dont think its a negative thing to make it your own...

of course, it is the scientific method to question everything. I would not persuade anyone to come up with their own facts, but a curious mind is a healthy mind