|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with the Big Bang theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Well, if you say so. I'm Lawful Neutral, myself. I could have guessed. So was I as a prophesing atheist. So you're lafully neutral? So you don't believe in the laws of physics or prefer them to say... non-existence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
But that is not on topic here, and I don't want to reinvoke Asgara's wrath. So you say all that without leaning me an option to reply? I have a response, but will withhold it out of 'real' respect for the power held in the hands of... god? talk about a trap!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I think I understand everything in your last post very well. But what the BB does is far more than tell us how God created (in our opinion).
The BB is a conclusion based on observation and evidence The BB is not a conclusion. It is a theory. It is an alternative explanation (other than the Biblical one) which attempts to explain how the universe was formed. It is based on pieces of a puzzle that show significant coherence. It's like one of those hexagon number puzzles we've all seen. You know? The little orange disk with 9 blue hexagons? All the hexagons have numbers on each of their sides, and all the sides touch the adjacent hexagons. All of the numbers much match up if the solution is correct. The BB is like someone getting all but one or two of the hexagons to match, and then telling someone they have a legitimate solution. It's not a perfect analogy, but it works for me. The public is told that some of the evidence lining up confirms the strategy. And in so doing refutes the Biblical model, or at least leads to very contrived interpretations of the scriptures or a conclusion that the Bible is errant. There is a lot of buzz about the bang, but buzz is not the same thing as revelation. Revelation is when you get it right and you know that you couldn't have even thought of it, because it is that brilliant and that simple. Revelation is when God gives you the solution for free! It is when you fall to your knees and sing, 'I was blind but now I see'! Hey, how come I don't see warnings to you about topic violation. it would be nice to see one. It would at least provide cover for any rumblings of conspiracy (intentional or sovereign).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I said:
quote: You said:Well again, that just isn't correct. The Big Bang is the conclusion based on the evidence. There are several Theories to explain the Big Bang, but it is a conclusion based on the evidence. Yes jar! You are correct. But you totally ignored how I explained what that means. For any who missed it, here it is..
The BB is not a conclusion (ok scratch that!). But it is a theory. And an incomplete one at that! It is an alternative theory (other than the Biblical explaination) which attempts to explain how the universe was formed. It is based on pieces of a puzzle that show significant coherence. It's like one of those hexagon number puzzles we've all seen. You know? The little orange disk with 9 blue hexagons? All the hexagons have numbers on each of their sides, and all the sides touch the adjacent hexagons. All of the numbers much match up if the solution is correct. The BB is like someone getting all but one or two of the hexagons to match (significant coherence), and then telling the world they have a legitimate solution. Do you understand that jar? I don't mind the parsing of words so much as the attempt to deflect my meaning. It's like when you corrected me and said orangutans and humans are not monkeys but primates. I think I made my point clear, but you are a machine my friend! You correct people over details that only prove to show how clever you are. And you're quite clever (no doubt there!) but it does indeed make you a (shh 'what I called you'). It was not meant as an insult, but as an accurate description of your platitudinous efeetism (care to critique the spelling?). You've proven to everyone your inellectual prowess, now let's show a little humility as well. In fact, I respect your intellect enough to engage in this chess match. Let's not forget that we play for a reason. let's not forget that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. I don't think it would bother me so much if I wasn't the same way by nature. You may call yourself a primate, but I feel like a monkey with some of this stuff! We are too often bringing out the worst in each other. So... with all due respect to my orange friend ( spit/cough ), my point still stands. Though BB is a conclusion based on evidence, it is an incomplete theory. To suggest otherwise is putting the primate before the protazoan!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Because once you posit that there is something beyond the "universe", then you are really saying that the universe is a little bit bigger than what we initially thought. Well we know that isn't true huh? We know everything!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Thank you for agreeing finally that the Big Bang is not a theory but a conclusion based on evidence. The Big Bang is based on evidence in the same way that evidence wrongly convicts the accused in many a court room. If that is your idea of a conclusion, then that is the conclusion you will get! Unbelievable!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Your puzzle analogy presupposes a "correct" solution. Yes Ringo, you're so right! Now that's clever, but I don;t suppose anyone gets it but you and I?
A better analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle - even if a lot of pieces are missing, we can say, "Hey, that's a Big Bang." As long as we can be pretty sure that it is a Big Bang and not a horsey or a duckie, we have a pretty good theory. Your jigsaw puzzle has some pretty fuzzy edges... That whole infinite concept thingy is very unnerving. We don't have the whole picture, and I try to tell everyone the missing pieces are found in Christ. In Corinthians it says, 'You are complete in Him.' But then I am dismissed as 'unscientific'. I beg to differ! Experience may be personal, but it is most certainly emperical. And it is a shared empericism. Many a brother in the spirit has put rest any doubts of my own sanity. I can accept that that is irrelevant in the scientific sense. But I don't here anyone declaring that 'you are complete in science!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
You realize that that is why some less civilized primates are kept in cages? You extend your hand and they have been known to bite it off!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
So far, those pieces look like a Big Bang. Until you can get Christ to spit 'em out and until you sweep behind the couch, you can't pretend to know what the picture "should" look like. I don't pretend to know. You can call me a liar, but I don't think you are. I conceded already that the peices may look like a big bang. But a collage may look like planet... until you step back and see that it is a picture of God holding the whole thing in his hand. You are coming from the position that facts are the only thing that matters. Am I correct? Is that the essential scientific concept wrapped up in the clearest terms? If so, I think the problem with that is that Stalin obliterated 15 million people. It's just a fact. But without meaning, it is useless. I can gather all kinds of facts about the meteorological conditions today in my region. All the best data! but can I tell you what the wheather was a month ago based on those mathematical models? No! Nor can I tell you what it will be in a week. A close guess at best. There are forces at work too complex to pin down, and that's just the atmosphere on one planet out of untold hundreds of billions. Yet, I am expected to believe that we have the ability to look into the past and calculate the entire universe's position and attitude. The extreme disproportion in the differences in difficulty between the two problems is not even fathomable. I do not deny science and collection of facts. I just think we are way ahead of ourselves and a tiny little tad bit arrogant. I think the belief in the Big bang and other naturalistic theories is motivated much more by individual meaning be it subconscious or not. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand firm on these points until persuaded otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I would like to offer a sincere apology for insulting you. It is I who am the pompous ass. I expect more from myself.
You present vigorous challenges that I may have wrongly perceived as dishonest. After giving it much consideration, I think that I have been guilty of being provacative. I will attempt to separate my emotional attatchment more in the future. Your patience is appriciated. I look forward to simmilar vigorous challenges with you in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Well, that certainly seems to be the consensus. The convention, if you will. I don't like it, but I guess you've got to pay to play. The world is ruled by men, and I suppose I must cooperate in a respectable manner if I have any chance of participating in the debate.
If you don't mind me saying, I don't think that science can even be considered a consensus. I recently heard a very well known radio talk show host make that very point rather well considering his general simplicity in the intellectual battle-ground. Consensus does not change facts. So when we hear that the consensus among scientists is that 'such and such' would lead us to believe 'this or that' they are themselves stepping over that line that you have drawn. What they are actually doing, is projecting meaning from the facts at hand. Often correctly! And I have always maintained that that is what we are forced to do, if we are to make such facts useful to the promotion of our respective worldviews, and in the making of useful benefits to us in the most immediate and practical ways as well. The BB is a perfect example of this. There is simply no reason (or meaning) to infer, if one is operating from a position of actual neutrality. Since the worldview of a scientist is typically claimed to be one of agnosticism in regards to theism, a pure scientist in that stripe would infer nothing, because we simply cannot ever know all the facts by his own presupposition. I find it all disturbing to say the least, but will restrict myself to disciplined arguments such as this in the future. I do not believe I am the only one on the planet who needs to step back and acknowledge nearsightedness. Nor do I believe that I am the only one who is promoting a particular meaning onto the evidence. I think that it is simply absurd to suggest that any human being can really posess that purity of objectivity. We are forced to be subjective, because we cannot breath methane and remain alive. I am just dissapointed with my own impatience and egomaniacal attitude, which completely destroys any ability to find some common ground with which to meet on these very difficult issues. Edited by scottness, : No reason given. Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
it's appropriate to defer to the consensus judgement of experts. Don't you think? We can't all be experts on everything. It's no crime to defer to the consensus of experts; but neither should we expect that the consensus reflects anything but what is understood from the evidence we have now. I don't have a problem with this in general. I mean obviously we are forced to accept many things on authority. As you implied, we simply cannot individually be experts on everything. But it is very risky. That is why so many do not trust religious leaders. And rightly so! But what's good for the goose is good for the gander if you don't mind the cliche. Joseph Mengala anyone? We end up getting into that fuzzy necessity of ethics and morality. And that is why i cannot disconnect the emperical from the existential. How any sane and self respecting rationalist (and most of you are brilliant ( except Crash )) can actually propose that we do is something that is very difficult for me to relate to. I must conclude that there is an persoanl issue getting in the way of an honest assesment of the whole picture. Not making accusations here... I do the same thing if I do not examine myself carefully. It is part and parcel of the human condition. Is that unreasonable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I will have to defer the kind of response that this post requires for another day, lest I risk repeating past mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
It is arrogant to think that you know other people's motivations. Yeah, it's not like I'm human...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5875 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
If others see the same "facts" as I do, they are more likely to be facts and not just mere beliefs. I probably shouldn't provoke you, but... Is that why the majority of people believe in a creator? I guess I'm in good company even if we are despised. You see? I don't just project arrogance, but expose it as well. Edited by scottness, : No reason given. Edited by scottness, : n't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024