|
Author
|
Topic: The Big Bang and the visible past.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 10 of 89 (582084)
09-19-2010 6:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-19-2010 5:55 PM
|
|
Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Wouldn't a Hindu be able to discover things further in the past than a Christian?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-19-2010 5:55 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 35 of 89 (582622)
09-22-2010 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 11:25 AM
|
|
Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Buz writes: Yah sure, Larni, like IDist eternal universe science proponents would like to know and understand the appearance that the BB poofed from nothing. The difference Buz is that there are ongoing scientific experiments and predictions that are testing the various Scientific theories. What experiments and predictions are being attempted to support the alleged IDists eternal whatever?
Buz writes: Whether or not we all acknowledge the other's interpretation of observed phenomena, there is supportive evidence for both arguments. And you have been asked many times on many subjects to present the supportive evidence for your argument. Here is yet another opportunity for you to try to actually support your argument.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:25 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 52 of 89 (583022)
09-24-2010 10:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 9:13 AM
|
|
Re: Redefining Definition
Buz writes: The BB allegedly defines itself so as for it's proponents to change the meaning of terms like eternity, intelligence and design, so as to absolve it's proponents of any need to explain the mysterious aspects of it. Good God Buz, do you ever read what you write? How can you say that the proponents (whatever that means) try to absolve themselves of explaining the mysterious aspects? Cavediver and others have spent post after post trying to explain it to you. What exactly do you think particle theorists and cosmologists do other than try to explain and more importantly test, the mysterious aspects to advance understanding.
Buz writes: The ID Bible, by this token, defines anything pertaining to itself for interpretation of anything pertaing to it to accomodate Biblical POV groups. Dictionary definitions need not be applied to anything Biblical. HUH? The "ID Bible"? It defines itself? No dictionary need apply? Come on Buz, where did you find this "ID Bible"? Is there any chance we can actually get you to present chapter and verse from this "ID Bible" so we can test what you say? Edited by jar, : applin spallin
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 9:13 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 1:48 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 58 of 89 (583073)
09-24-2010 2:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: Redefining Definition
Buz writes: Does the BB allegedly defining aspects of itself, as advocated by Cavediver, match or redefine the long standing dictionary definitions of these word terms? HUH? Word salad? What does that even mean? You do know that a Dictionary is nothing more then a history of how terms were used in the past don't you? You do understand that the post you are replying to was pointing out that you were misrepresenting what others have said? Did you or did you not say Buz writes: "The BB allegedly defines itself so as for it's proponents to change the meaning of terms like eternity, intelligence and design, so as to absolve it's proponents of any need to explain the mysterious aspects of it" Pay attention to the bold and underlined parts. Did you actually read this...
quote:
How can you say that the proponents (whatever that means) try to absolve themselves of explaining the mysterious aspects? Cavediver and others have spent post after post trying to explain it to you. What exactly do you think particle theorists and cosmologists do other than try to explain and more importantly test, the mysterious aspects to advance understanding.
When you asserted that there is some "ID Bible" did you not say Buz writes: "The ID Bible, by this token, defines anything pertaining to itself for interpretation of anything pertaing to it to accomodate Biblical POV groups. Dictionary definitions need not be applied to anything Biblical. " Pay attention to the bold and underlined parts. Yet now you respond by claiming some higher authority devolves on Dictionary definitions?
Buz writes: Does the BB allegedly defining aspects of itself, as advocated by Cavediver, match or redefine the long standing dictionary definitions of these word terms? Pay attention to the bold and underlined parts. So once again I have to ask, do you ever read what you write?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 1:48 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 65 of 89 (583139)
09-24-2010 8:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 7:31 PM
|
|
Re: Redefining Definition
Buz writes: The same goes with intelligent and design. You/they would, I assume, define intelligent design as something that emerged void of intelligent design, naturally from premordial non-living soup. Of course not. Intelligent Design is what humans do as opposed to what is seen in nature. Intelligent Design emerged only when humans learned enough to start modifying their personal environment. But what the hell does that have to do with the Big Bang and the visible past?
In spite of all of the above, secularists scoff Biblical ID as ideocy and unscientific nonsense, unfit for the science fora. Christian Theists also laugh at such nonsense Buz. But I still have hope that you will actually present some evidence in support of your position. Edited by jar, : inserted missing 'emerged'
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 7:31 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 10:28 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 68 of 89 (583144)
09-24-2010 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 10:28 PM
|
|
Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Jar, fyi, intelligent design in implicated in the DNA information, so in that vein, it is implicated in nature. The problem, however, is that observation of the real world does not follow that model. It follows the model of order to disorder. Disorder left to itself is generally does not becoming more orderly and complex in design. Not only is that word salad, it is totally unsupported word salad that is completely refuted by every observation of the real world. DNA is the result of chemical bonding just like every other known molecule. Look at the following pictures.
Order Buz. Every example simply the product of physics, chemistry and biology.
It bodes contrary to what is presumed to be the visible past To prick and burst the thread bubble, mathmatically enginered models do not produce a visible past. They are debatable and complicated products of scientific visionaries who feverishly work to propagate a visible past in the elite secularistic (IDists need not apply) journals, accademia and all avenues of media. HUH? More undecipherable word salad. Can you try to explain what any of that even means? Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence in support of any position you try to market?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 10:28 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 71 of 89 (583147)
09-24-2010 11:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 11:03 PM
|
|
So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
Buz writes: Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world. Buz, I did not disregard your "scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world"; if you have not noticed every one of those pictures are examples of observing disorder becoming order in the natural world.
Buz writes: Those beautiful images give glory to the eternal ID designer, Jehovah whose existence is substantially corroborated in the fulfilled propecies, archeological evidence and cultural observations, all of which you and so many sheeple, brainwashed into secularism, refuse to acknowledge. And if you EVER get around to presenting an example of "fulfilled propecies[sic], archeological evidence and cultural observations" I will happily discuss it. Now how about the Big Bang and the visible past? Do you have anything there or just a continued stream of nonsense, word salad and unsupported assertions?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:14 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 76 of 89 (583201)
09-25-2010 11:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
09-25-2010 8:14 AM
|
|
Re: So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
Buz writes: Three things; I said, "generally," meaning there are exceptions here and there, but not by and large. But you have not presented any evidence to support that. Let's see if I can find order on a larger scale.
How about this scale?
Buz writes: Intelligence and long time beneficial order are not the norm in exceptions. There you go adding yet more totally unrelated positions. Long term? Beneficial? Intelligence? None of those has been required in any of the examples, and quite honestly, not one of them is relevant or important to this topic. Long Term in relation to? Beneficial to? Intelligent as? The only thing you have added so far have been undefined terms and unsupported assertions. How about finally providing some support for "the fulfilled propecies[sic], archeological evidence and cultural observations" you keep claiming exist.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:14 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 80 of 89 (584502)
10-02-2010 10:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by RCS
10-02-2010 2:04 AM
|
|
Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Welcome to EvC RCS. Of course, the Hindu Creation myths are useless as science but it is interesting that like many other myths they do not limit the age of the earth or universe.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by RCS, posted 10-02-2010 2:04 AM | | RCS has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 86 of 89 (585059)
10-05-2010 10:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by RCS
10-05-2010 12:08 AM
|
|
Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Because absolutely none of those ARE of scientific value. They are just like the equally invalid claims made by Islam and Judaism and even my own religion, Christianity. To be of scientific value you need to have an explanation for the things you mention, the models and explanations. You need to show the model of why matter and energy can be exchanged, why something has inertia, produce the evidence that the universe expands and contracts and the model that explains why it expands and contracts and you have to present the model that explains why stars and galaxies evolve. Nothing in what you posted is science. It is simply dogma and unsupported assertion. And lastly, before you ask me why the BB is not a myth, you need to learn a few terms and a little about what science is. I don't expect you to know science in detail but you need to understand why asking "Lastly, why BB too is not a myth?" is a silly question.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:08 AM | | RCS has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
