Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 61 of 171 (676763)
10-25-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 8:34 AM


Lonely
Mad writes:
You imagine I must have friends and relatives who think like yourself so upon reading what I write here are bound to decide that my mocking your dogma and second-hand opinions on physics is a sign of madness, so will let me know that in no uncertain terms. Your assumptions are unwarranted. Why would I need boring friends like that? No reason.
Re-reading this, I see that you do not actually have any friends or relatives in your life that you could show your posts to.
This explains how you have managed to drift into madness, with no-one to help you realise.
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.
Mad writes:
Otherwise, madness is other people's problem, not any problem of the mad. It inconveniences other people first of all like any bad or criminal behaviour. The mad and bad are likely to be happy to be just like they are. So you should have written - show what your write to your relatives and friends as I hope they may have problems with it.
This is a step in the right direction.
It appears from this post that you might possibly realise that there is a gap between you and reality.
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 8:34 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 9:15 AM Panda has not replied
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 9:46 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 62 of 171 (676766)
10-25-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Panda
10-25-2012 8:47 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
No is no good. You need to back it up with reasoning.
How many? Twenty three. Silly obstinate Panda's Thumby.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 8:47 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 9:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 63 of 171 (676769)
10-25-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Panda
10-25-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Lonely
There might be a gap but it is not as great as the gap those who believe that the whole of existence could be possibly squeezed into a pea have. That kind of an abyss only collective madness can put between you and reality.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 8:54 AM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 64 of 171 (676770)
10-25-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 9:06 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
Mad writes:
No is no good. You need to back it up with reasoning.
How many? Twenty three. Silly obstinate Panda's Thumby.
What is the quantity of positive integers that exist?
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 9:06 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:28 AM Panda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 171 (676779)
10-25-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Panda
10-25-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Lonely
Re-reading this, I see that you do not actually have any friends or relatives in your life that you could show your posts to.
That explains the cat fascination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 8:54 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 66 of 171 (676801)
10-25-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Panda
10-25-2012 9:22 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
That is self-referential, silly. Each integer expresses a quantity. So you are asking what is the quantity of quantities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 9:22 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 11:45 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 67 of 171 (676804)
10-25-2012 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 9:46 AM


All your insinuations are irrelevant. The cat may be a brain in a vat or a rat on a mat. Irrelevant. None of that is going to save your bigbangist faith from rational scrutiny and make it less idiotic upon examination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 12:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 68 of 171 (676806)
10-25-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 11:28 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
Mad writes:
That is self-referential, silly. Each integer expresses a quantity. So you are asking what is the quantity of quantities.
No, I am asking how many positive integers there are.
It is not my fault if you cannot answer without facing your own delusions.
You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:28 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:27 PM Panda has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 171 (676817)
10-25-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 11:35 AM


The cat may be a brain in a vat or a rat on a mat.
Actually, we all live on a planet that is orbiting the Sun in a corner of the Milky Way galaxy.
None of that is going to save your bigbangist faith from rational scrutiny
I actually do have faith in some things. The Big Bang is not one of them. I've come to accept that explanation through the examination of evidence. Faith is for when I don't have enough evidence.
and make it less idiotic upon examination.
What is it about your beliefs that makes you only want to destroy knowledge and never contribute to it? All you ever do is try to discredit things that we do know, but you never actually add to anything. For example, in Message 36 you wrote:
quote:
It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once. Waves require medium necessarily. Wave is a moving shape of that medium. Therefore, the description is a metaphor and could be well replaced with other more concrete description better reflecting the physical attributes and architecture of the phenomenon of radiation.
You say that the definition is a problem, and that a better definition would be better. Well no shit. But you don't offer anything that would be better. Your content just covincing yourself that there is a problem.
So allow me to speculate here on why you do this: The Big Band and Evolution are incompatible with your religious beliefs so instead of modifying your religious beliefs to fit within the new evidence, you discount the evidence so you can maintain your beliefs. Is that close? How religious are you?
ABE:
It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once.
Oh, yeah: A photon isn't like a tennis ball.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 11:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 70 of 171 (676856)
10-25-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Panda
10-25-2012 11:45 AM


Re: engage with people who are not actually insane.
Irrelevant. You insinuate the integers are infinite according to your garbled sets ideas. Count sheep instead, silly. Integers start with 1 killing the infinity in the bud. What they physically represent could be extended in the other direction. Infinite means without border, end or limit. If you start counting, that is a limit already. Never reached to be expressed with a number. Counting could be assumed to be incessant. That's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Panda, posted 10-25-2012 11:45 AM Panda has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 71 of 171 (676862)
10-25-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 12:08 PM


Irrelevant, Vatican. What evidence is that you examined? The same as for Jesus walking on water? All you've got is authority to parrot, my friend. Face it.
Big bang is incompatible with the necessity, relativity and the rest of good sense. That's all.
Gaede's ropes is a good idea that could have replaced waves and particles. It's like giving physical architecture to Mach's principle. You are too brainwashed to consider that or something similar. You are happy with what you've got. Evolution is a local phenomenon. It's obvious. Change over time. It's abiogenesis that is in serious doubt, not evolution. The mechanism is likely to be not what you imagine.
Anyway try this. He is anti-relativist every relativist needs to read.
index

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 2:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 72 of 171 (676864)
10-25-2012 1:59 PM


Cease and desist, now

All:


Please keep on topic. Please desist from insulting or otherwise disrespecting members. The warning that I gave in Message 25 now applies to everyone. Get this thread back to discussing elements of origins that one has to take on faith (though I'm happy with arguments along the lines of not taking anything on faith).
Regardless of your personal feelings towards members, please please - be respectful in public.
Dr A, please don't make any further posts like Message 43, Message 47, Message 48 and Message 50. They aren't contributing, and they are spammy.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 73 of 171 (676878)
10-25-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 1:49 PM


What evidence is that you examined? The same as for Jesus walking on water? All you've got is authority to parrot, my friend.
Um, except for that one time that I did time travel back to the early universe and see it for myself (totally forgot my camera , I'm afraid that the way presenting evidence here works is basically parroting an authority.
But anyways, regarding the evidence: there's Hubble's Law; where the glaxies that are farther away are more redshifted.
That tells us the universe is expanding. Its not hard to imagine that if you rewinded time, then everything would be much closer together.
On top of that we have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radion:
That the early universe was near universal in temperature pretty much confirmed the Big Bang Theory.
You didn't answer my other quesitons though: Why are you so intent on destroying this knowledge? What drives you to want to deny it? And why do you gotta be a jerk about it?
Anyway try this. He is anti-relativist every relativist needs to read.
index
You, sir, have totally delivered. I wasn't sure what to expect, but with your reputation that site is as batshit crazy as I should have expected it to be. Thank you for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:49 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2012 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 171 (676886)
10-25-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 2:55 PM


You, sir, have totally delivered. I wasn't sure what to expect, but with your reputation that site is as batshit crazy as I should have expected it to be.
But what is more strange is this --- A.M's crazy nonsense about time seems to be based on thinking that Einstein was right and then being pathetically wrong about what Einstein was right about. So why did A.M. link us to this site? All Maddenstein's delusions come back to his pitiful inability to understand Einstein. So why does he link us to a site that claims that Einstein was wrong about everything?
It is possible, of course, that A.M. is just an enormous troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 78 by vimesey, posted 10-25-2012 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 75 of 171 (676889)
10-25-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2012 2:55 PM


That's not good enough, Vatican. Very stale rumours and as evidence is even less tangentially circumstantial than what we've got for Jesus turning water into fishes.
Hubble himself was not so sure about any of that. He wrote about apparent receding motion and so on. He had no good explanation and was in no hurry to spew nonsense about expanding distances, demons accelerating the existence into nowhere, etc.
Bill Gaede is as rational as it gets. Just not devoid of a sense of humour. Read on. Don't be shy. You might learn a thing or two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2012 3:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024