Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the Big Bang theory
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 229 of 303 (369637)
12-13-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
12-13-2006 7:43 PM


Re: A delicate reply... and then back to the topic
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 234 of 303 (369656)
12-13-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Chiroptera
12-13-2006 9:39 PM


Re: This isn't hard.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 9:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 10:42 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 235 of 303 (369657)
12-13-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by jar
12-13-2006 8:48 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 8:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 10:27 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 238 of 303 (369669)
12-13-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by jar
12-13-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
I said:
quote:
The BB is not a conclusion. It is a theory.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 10:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM Rob has replied
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 12-13-2006 11:39 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 240 of 303 (369672)
12-13-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Chiroptera
12-13-2006 9:39 PM


Re: This isn't hard.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 9:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 242 of 303 (369674)
12-13-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-13-2006 11:34 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM jar has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 243 of 303 (369675)
12-13-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
12-13-2006 11:39 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 12-13-2006 11:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 12:06 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 244 of 303 (369676)
12-13-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-13-2006 11:34 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-14-2006 12:05 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 257 of 303 (370084)
12-15-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ringo
12-14-2006 12:06 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 12:06 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 12:59 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 258 of 303 (370091)
12-15-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-13-2006 11:34 PM


An off topic apology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:08 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 260 of 303 (370121)
12-16-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
12-15-2006 11:08 PM


Re: An off topic apology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2006 12:46 AM Rob has replied
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-16-2006 12:56 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 262 of 303 (370128)
12-16-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by crashfrog
12-16-2006 12:46 AM


Re: An off topic apology
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2006 12:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 265 of 303 (370133)
12-16-2006 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-16-2006 12:56 AM


Re: back towards the Big Bang
I will have to defer the kind of response that this post requires for another day, lest I risk repeating past mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-16-2006 12:56 AM jar has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 266 of 303 (370134)
12-16-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
12-16-2006 12:59 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
It is arrogant to think that you know other people's motivations.
Yeah, it's not like I'm human...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 12:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:13 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 268 of 303 (370136)
12-16-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by ringo
12-16-2006 1:13 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:13 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:29 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 12-16-2006 10:33 AM Rob 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