|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I can not prove the beautiful pink unicorn or the spaghetti monster does not exist. But they did not have a man write down in a book some 3300 years ago that they created the heavens and the earth, nor that they imparted life into a form. Sure you can. Just look here:FSM Gospel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I gave my evidence with its source. A book that is thousands of years old does not constitute as evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The church of the FSM and Pastafarianism was created by Bobby the Prophet. His Noodly Greatness IS and always has been.
Check out venganza.org and tell me the FSM does not exist. They have a section just for you.
It seems the FSM was created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 so he only exists in Bobby's mind and those who have faith in him/her. By that token, your god only exists in the minds of christians. See, I can do the same thing. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist. Neither do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The only evidence I have I presented. As an active member of this forum, you should be well aware that the bible does not constitute as being evidence. There are many findings/books/white papers stating the facts of Evolution, yet you do not accept those evidences. Why should we, then, accept the bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
See, what you are failing to realize is that science is oh-so close to being able to find evidence of a mulitverse. So, what you claim to be metaphysics, shall soon be considered science (it already is).
String theory? Scientists have placed Hydrogen-3 in a vacuum test tube in two different phases, one sandwiched between another (think: plasma-colder plasma-plasma) by freezing it to 150 microkelvin above absolute zero. Thus being one step closing to testing string theory. Basically, the fact that they can actually set up tests to test string theory, pretty much solidifies it as science. I'm curious if you even know the basics of string theory. Read more here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Our "universe"? Yes. Well, the current data points to that timeframe. Now, the multiverse, on the otherhand, is theoretically infinite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Well, current theorom suggests that there our view of a "universe" is skewed. Dr. Michio Kaku explains it quite well in an interview with the BBC here.
What is suggested is that basically you could think of an individual universe as a soap bubble, with black holes as birth canals in which a new universe would be spawned. A soap bubble because, hypothetically, all universes are connected via black holes, with "white holes" being the universe birthers.You then get another big bang/expansion from each individual black hole once they become too full with matter, thus turning to "white holes" on the "other side", emitting enrgey, rather than sucking it all up. If you actually think about it, and realize how vast our universe is, it's not really that inconceivable. Of course, you actually have to think OUTSIDE the box to perceive it. Hopefully, with Kepler, we will be able to get more data as to support this hypothesis, or discard it and come up with a new one. so....
So, essentially our universe has always been expanding even prior to T=0. T=0 meaning Time=0 or going back 13.7b years ago to 0? Basically, yes. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
As per string theory, yes.
If you think about it, a black hole is exactly what is theorised when speaking of "what was before the big bang". An infinitely, or near infinitely, dense point of matter. IMO, all of that matter has to go somewhere. Scinetists don't normally just make up random shit and make it public. Well, at least the good, honest ones don't. The ones that do, are called those "creation scientists". Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Very true. And I most definitely agree. I am just suggesting this as a very good possibility since the idea of "before the big bang" is becoming skewed as well.
And as can be seen here they are getting oh-so-close to successfully testing the theory. Couple this find with Keplar, and the VLT in Chile, here, which is in the process of being set up to take a direct peek at black holes, we are in for some kick ass cosmology in the coming years. Edited by hooah212002, : added link Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : mistook VLA for VLT and found the article that has the info
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Indeed you are correct, sir. I mistook it for the Planck mission.
I am but an amateur astronomer, in the beginnings of my self-learning of the cosmos. So, I easily mistake one observation device for another, given the vast amount that are viewing the sky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I am guessing the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the Hubble. link
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak link - Remove the "/url" from directly after the "gov".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I watched a video the other day, of which I can't currently find, and I could have swore it said the JWST was capable of both.........most likely on DailyGalxy.
Oops, way off topic here. Sorry mods edit: nope, I am wrong. It IS a straight infrared telescope. Edited by hooah212002, : admitted I was wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That is NOT AT ALL what NASA claims the JWST is capable of. Please, please, PLEASE stop blaspheming astronomy like this. Did you not read the link I responded to perdition with? Did you research what you typed?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I do apologize for calling you out on bullshit. Please accept this apology.
I was merely stating thata) you claim the article you read linked to NASA's report b) I directly linked to the JWTS site, which makes no such claim. If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed It doesn't make this claim. The only claim is the mission statement, which states that they *hope* to be able to see the oldest light in the universe. Which, hypothetically, would be the BB. So, please, utilize your resources.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024