Lemme watch that again. Ok so "our part of space", "cosmological realms" and two simplified versions of what the phrase "before the big bang" might even be considered to mean. Some tame speculation about dark energy and gravity. No universes. Are you sure you watched the video?

Your video, What is Dark Energy and Dark Matter?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

I had a theory too, that our theory of gravity is just wrong, at least at extreme scales. In other words, the law of gravity is still at the Newtonian motion stage, it's close enough for day-to-day and mid-range observations, but fails to provide accurate predictions at larger (and smaller) scales. This also explains why quantum mechanics and gravitation theory still have not been reconciled.

There is no observational evidence of dark matter (or dark energy) for that matter. They are the equivalent of fudge-factors...no, not the equivalent, they -are- fudge-factors, created out of thin air to try and make the numbers add up to the observations.

Dark energy hasn't been measured. We don't observe it. We observe effects of something. It is still unknown what it is, or if it really exists.

And don't put words into my mouth.

Dark energy can be observed and has been measured.
What you mean is you don't want to talk to anyone who refused to accept your baseless assertions.
There was a time we didn't know what gravity was,,that doesn't mean we couldn't see it. Or measure it.

ZERO evidence of dark energy or matter... those are a part of the model you believe to be absolutely correct?

The computers were an analogy. I guess I'm done. I cannot converse with such close minded individuals for very long. If you can't think outside the box, then I have nothing more to add.

The issue then becomes, if we start accepting scientific facts like the big bang and evolution, that moves stories like Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of babel and the like become parables. Which I am fine with, I was fine with that when I was a Christian as that is the most likely scenario, the problem is where do we draw the line at what is parable and what is literal? Why did the creator of the universe make himself known to only one tiny tribe of people in a backwater part of the world some 6,000 years ago, and not to all of humanity around the world, why not have prophets all over? It is either a local deity, like Odin,Athena, Ra and the like, or a racist jerk.

No science will never probably answer what was there before the big bang, time itself didn't exist... That is perhaps the only valid "gap" for a god to fill. We understand how the universe came to be in its present state fairly well, with a few odd issues like dark matter/dark energy to be resolved but those are filling in. Abiogenesis is early enough in the its understanding of life origins to be a small gap, but that is filling, and the process of biological evolution is fully understood and well mapped out.

In the end the problem is that there seems to be no god actively moving on the universe or people's lives. We don't see properly documented limbs growing without science. We don't see a consistent result from praying to only the Christian God compared to praying to some Hinu god to get results (praying itself is slightly better than not, but it doesn't matter to whom is prayed, praying to the flying spaghetti monster is just as effective as praying to Yahweh or Kali). If there is a God, then he is ineffective, and that in the end is a problem for religion... and ultimately what is the point of worshiping a god that only wants people to praise and worship him while giving us nothing in return? Wohoo I believed in God (Yahweh) and now get to spend eternity praising and worshipping him full time with no distractions like work and having fun with the family...basically I get to do the same thing the angels do (and they apparently have a choice in the matter since 1/3rd of them followed Lucifer in praising him over Yahweh)... what's the point of that? To avoid the hell he created for those who chose not to end up being his praise slave 24/7 for eternity? Let me see evidence, let me see him do something for me in my life here and now, then I'll believe.

More absurd than some magical omnipotent being wishing us into existence? I'd sooner go with aliens seeding the early earth with life than "God did it".

Honestly abiogenesis is a lot less absurd than say, quantum or dark energy. Not that I'm suggesting those don't exist, just that our natural intuition about something is frequently false.

Boner: It is still confusing...

Astrophysicists have created the most realistic computer simulation of the universe's evolution to date, tracking activity from the Big Bang to now -- a time span of around 14 billion years -- in high resolution.

Created by a team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics (CfA) in collaboration with researchers at the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS), the Arepo software provides detailed imagery of different galaxies in the local universe using a technique known as "moving mesh".

Unlike previous model simulators, such as the Gadget code, Arepo's hydrodynamic model replicates the gaseous formations following the Big Bang by using a virtual, flexible grid that has the capacity to move to match the motions of the gas, stars, dark matter and dark energy that make up space -- it's like a virtual model of the cosmic web, able to bend and flex to support the matter and celestial bodies that make up the universe. Old simulators instead used a more regimented, fixed, cubic grid.

"We took all the advantages of previous codes and removed the disadvantages," explained Volker Springel, the HITS astrophysicist who built the software. Springel, an expert in galaxy formation who helped build the Millennium Simulation to trace the evolution of 10 billion particles, used Harvard's Odyssey supercomputer to run the simulation. Its 1,024 processor cores allowed the team to compress 14 billion years worth of cosmic history in the space of a few months.

The results are spiral galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda that actually look like spiral galaxies -- not the blurred blobs depicted by previous simulators -- generated from data input that stretches as far back as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus portraying a dramatic cosmic evolution (see the above video for a sneak peek of that evolution from four billion years after the Big Bang).

"We find that Arepo leads to significantly higher star formation rates for galaxies in massive haloes and to more extended gaseous disks in galaxies, which also feature a thinner and smoother morphology than their Gadget counterparts," the team states in a paper describing the technology.

Though the feat is impressive -- CfA astrophysicist Debora Sijacki compares the high-resolution simulation's improvement over previous models to that of the 24.5-metre aperture Giant Magellan Telescope's improvement over all telescopes -- the team aim to generate simulations of larger areas of the universe. If this is achieved, the team will have created not only the most realistic, but the biggest universe simulation ever.



>> ^BoneRemake:

this video is a waste without addition information.
what am I looking at. spiraling gas' or something.
what is the significance, why did nine people upvote something they probably do not understand.
what part of the universe is this ? why didnt it start at the beginning ?
WHY WHY FUCKING WHY.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

Two:

About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.

Sorry if you were offended. I think you're being overly melodramatic. You spent 3 paragraphs mentioning how indoctrinated you were into the mormon faith, and how this impacted your beliefs, as well as ragging on Christians and creationism, in the topic of "creationism vs evolution". Have some awareness of what you're doing and where you're doing it before you fly off of the handle.

---

I'm tired of the targeted trolling!

That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose to

It's not crap, it's a legitimate problem which cannot be explained without the inflationary fudge factors. It's the same thing with dark matter and dark energy. They were invented to explain away discrepancies in the SBB model, a model which is held together with duct tape and elmers glue, but you're a true believer, and you call everyone else morons. The pathological skeptic is skeptical of everything except his own cherished beliefs.

>> ^kceaton1:

There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

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

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by deathcow.