Since there's a lot of science talk today...

[Tigmafuzz]

We shall discuss science stuff that the general public has a serious misunderstanding of.
First, let's tackle the "Big Bang" theory, shall we?

The Perception:

You don't need an extensive education in astrophysics to guess what the Big Bang looked like. It's called the freaking
Big Bang. It must have been some kind of big ass explosion, right? Hell, even Carl Sagan agrees--after all, that's how
he shows it in one of his highly respected documentaries.

The Reality:

Since nobody was around to observe it, there is still debate surrounding the exact details of the origins of the cosmos,
but it most certainly did not look like an explosion as presented in the above freeze-frame. There are some who say the
origin of the universe came in a moment of extremely rapid matter expansion, aka the "Big Bang Theory." But the other,
most common, camp is the "steady state" theory, wherein the universe has been expanding at the same rate since day
one, and continues to expand at the same pace even now. Either way, though, both sides agree there was no "explosion."
Instead the universe expanded like a balloon full of dark matter and other cool sci-fi sounding science-y stuff.

The main argument between the groups of physicists is basically how fast the balloon inflated, not whether the balloon
inflated or exploded in a ball of fire.

Why We Picture it Wrong:

The whole problem comes back to that really misleading name. So, what kind of jerk would come up with the name "Big
Bang" if they were a smart enough scientist to know it was more of a "gradual swelling"?

Turns out it was one more opposed to the idea of a Big Bang than most. Fred Hoyle was an astrophysicist firmly on the
"steady state" side of the great debate of the birth of life, the universe, and everything. He came up with the phrase "Big
Bang" as a way to simply explain the viewpoint he disagreed with, intending people to hear the name and think the idea
of a giant explosion giving birth to existence was ridiculous.

This was a gross misjudgment of human nature. As soon as he suggested there was a huge explosion at the birth of the
universe, we latched onto that idea and never let it go. Hoyle simply failed to grasp how profoundly our species LOVES
big-ass explosions.

Is there anything else in physics or any branch of science or philosophy you can think of that the most people don't really understand, or are just plain wrong about?

[NorthernChaosGod]

Did you just copy/paste that from Cracked?

[Tigmafuzz]

Whoops. Forgot the quote tags.

[fire_of_avalon]

A lot of people around here tend to think I'm nice and they're just plain wrong!

[Tigmafuzz]

A lot of people around here tend to think I'm nice and they're just plain wrong!

What exactly does that have to do with science?

[NorthernChaosGod]

A lot of people around here tend to think I'm nice and they're just plain wrong!

Stop trying to be such a hardass, MegaPow. You're the sweetest person I know.

[Tigmafuzz]

I feel like I'm missing something, here. I shouldn't go away for so long.

[Mirage]

It annoys me when anti-evolution people shout for proofs of transitional fossils, and when someone finds one, they want the one between that new one and an older one instead, repeat ad infinitum.

[Diango12]

There is usually confusion about the difference between evolution as the study for how life forms become more complex, and abiogenesis, which studies the origin of life. People arguing against Evolution sometimes demand an explanation of how life originated. They don't seem to actually know that evolutionary biology, evolutionary genetics, abiogenesis, paleontology, and palaeoanthropology are all different studies, each contributing one piece to the puzzle.

Not that I'm well learned in any of them, so I'll take my amateur biologist hat off and simply say that non of the concepts behind evolution are difficult to understand at all! Anyone who refuses to accept the theory of evolution by natural selection has just never learned about it. Anyone still refusing to accept it after studying the theory has just never been to the Smithsonian museum.

[Tigmafuzz]

Anyone who refuses to accept the theory of evolution by natural selection has just never learned about it. Anyone still refusing to accept it after studying the theory has just never been to the Smithsonian museum.

I knew a girl who refused to even hear about evolution because her mother told her that everything in the Bible was God's law or something. It really hurts me deep inside that parents can implant this kind of ignorance into their children. I don't care what you believe, but not giving another person a chance to explain their side of the story is just plain rude. And they say Christians are loving and open-minded. In my experience, no matter how tactfully I enter into a discussion with one about anything related to either theology or philosophy in general, they're usually just disrespectful.

[Pheesh]

Yeah, I hate that show.

[Diango12]

I knew a girl who refused to even hear about evolution because her mother told her that everything in the Bible was God's law or something. It really hurts me deep inside that parents can implant this kind of ignorance into their children. I don't care what you believe, but not giving another person a chance to explain their side of the story is just plain rude. And they say Christians are loving and open-minded. In my experience, no matter how tactfully I enter into a discussion with one about anything related to either theology or philosophy in general, they're usually just disrespectful.

My experience from discussing theology and science with religiously devout people is that someone bent on religion, operates under the impression that among people, belief in a higher power is ubiquitous. They see disinclination as alien and strange. For the most part this is actually true. Atheists make up less than 9% of the North American continent. So there is little reluctance to affront what would be viewed as atheistic beliefs. They don't expect any back lash as atheists and intellectuals are a very small minority. Bill O'reilly on fox news brazenly makes offensive statements towards atheists in this country many times and without recoil. Why? Because he can.

[Tigmafuzz]

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. I don't believe that there isn't a god. I just accept the possibility that there may be a god, and that I'll most likely never know for sure as long as I'm alive without some sort of tangible evidence.

[Shlup]

It annoys me when anti-evolution people shout for proofs of transitional fossils, and when someone finds one, they want the one between that new one and an older one instead, repeat ad infinitum.

It's just a theory. Like all that gravity bulltrout. Keep your liberal agenda away from me.

It bugs me when people think we use 10% of our brains. We use 100% of out neurons, which make up 10% of brain matter. The other 90% of brain cells are glial cells, which are support cells. It's like saying we'd be a lot stronger if our bones and veins and trout were muscle.

[NorthernChaosGod]

It annoys me when anti-evolution people shout for proofs of transitional fossils, and when someone finds one, they want the one between that new one and an older one instead, repeat ad infinitum.

It's just a theory. Like all that gravity bulltrout. Keep your liberal agenda away from me.

It bugs me when people think we use 10% of our brains. We use 100% of out neurons, which make up 10% of brain matter. The other 90% of brain cells are glial cells, which are support cells. It's like saying we'd be a lot stronger if our bones and veins and trout were muscle.

The most common justification I've come across is just that we only use a small part of our brain at any given moment; it all gets used. *shrug*