Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:12 PM
31 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,031 Year: 12,067/19,786 Month: 1,848/2,641 Week: 357/708 Day: 51/81 Hour: 0/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 2 of 115 (460638)
03-17-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


I don't want to release a thread that continues to mix faith in science with the misunderstanding of a cosmological issue. Could you please trim this down to simply the cosmological issue, and change the title appropriately? Just the portion containing your reply to Bluescat should be sufficient.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 5:44 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 4 of 115 (460662)
03-17-2008 6:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 11 of 115 (460703)
03-18-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
03-18-2008 5:06 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
bluegenes writes:

You could try honesty, for a change, and give up your religion, but I doubt if you will. Honesty, after all, wouldn't be so comfortable for you, would it? Try to be honest with yourself about this. ;)

Let's please keep the focus on the topic and not on other participants.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 03-18-2008 5:06 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 12 of 115 (460705)
03-18-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
ICANT writes:

Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

Scientific theories start some wee bit of time after the origin. About 10-43 seconds after.

The Big Bang Theory starts then. Read the title again it says origins. This is Percy's choice of title.

The phrase "cosmological origins" does not specify a time period, but it certainly includes much more than just the instant T=0. This area of study seeks to understand and model the conditions in the early universe that led to the cosmological characteristics we observe today.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 24 of 115 (460738)
03-18-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
03-18-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
ICANT writes:

No need for a dictionary I am using Rahvin's definition of Faith.

Found Here

2. belief that is not based on proof:

You're not using Rahvin's definition of faith. You're welcome to return to Rahvin's message to better understand what he was saying, particularly this part (from Message 7):

Rahvin writes:

The models and math have been repeatedly shown to be highly accurate. Once again, it's not a belief not based on proof. All of science is based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments. It's the polar opposite of blind faith.

But we're not going to waste another thread playing word games. If your arguments in this thread are going to be predicated upon a determined misapplication of the word faith then I'll stop the discussion now.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 29 of 115 (460745)
03-18-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi ICANT,

I'm not going to allow you to continue just ignoring the rebuttals of this argument that you keep repeating:

But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.

The only way you can have something at T=O is to believe it is there.
That takes faith.

Rahvin in Message 16 said:

Rahvin in Message 16 writes:

Your position is that we take everything, even the existence of the Universe, prior to that point on faith. But we do know just a few scant details about the period between T=0 and T=10^-43. We know that the Universe exists in some way - time is a component of the Universe, so it's utter nonsense to say that the Universe might not exist until a fraction of a second into the time dimension of the Universe. That's like saying the Earth might not exist beyond a given latitude. We also know the trend that the Universe follows for every moment leading all the way back to T=10^-43: as you approach T=0, the Universe is smaller, hotter, and more dense. It is a reasonable, logical inference from that evidence to say "we don't really know much about the state of the Universe prior to T=10^-43 other than that it was hotter, denser, and smaller than at T=10^-43."

He also said:

Rahvin in Message 16 writes:

You seem to think that even making rational educated guesses and logical inferences based on limited evidence involves taking the conclusions on faith. This is not the case, because those conclusions are still based on evidence.

Teen4christ said the same thing in a different way in Message 21:

teen4christ in Message 21 writes:

Suppose you are walking along in a forest. On your path is a fallen tree. From the look of it, it probably was very recent that the tree fell. Burnt marks indicate that lightning was the cause. I'm pretty sure it's reasonable to assume from the burnt marks that it was very hot when the lightning struck the tree. Sure, we could also assume that the tree simply poofed into existence fallen and with burnt marks. But ask yourself which assumption out of the two is more feasible?

If you reply again to descriptions from people describing what they to believe to be the evidence with a dismissive "But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O," or anything remotely along these lines, I will suspend you. They've described why they believe they have evidence, it is now your turn to describe why they are mistaken in that belief.

You wanted to discuss this topic, so you now have a thread to discuss it. So begin discussing.

Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 53 of 115 (460818)
03-19-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
03-19-2008 9:31 AM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
ICANT writes:

The dynamical equilibrium model predicted the CMB better than the Big Bang Theory, prior to the prediction of the Big Bang Theory.

You're again ignoring responses. Chiroptera explained why this model was incorrect in Message 20. You responded in this way in Message 26:

ICANT in Message 26 writes:

What would happen if we could find something to make Max Born a little more of a prophet?

Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000

Which is no response at all. At a minimum this is ignoring rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

You not only provide no words of your own, you don't even make it into a link but just left it as text (for those interested, here's the link: Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift, by Paul Marmet).

If your position is that the "dynamical equilibrium model" is superior to current theory, then you must support your position by rebutting Chiroptera's explanations of its deficiencies.

I'm not going to do your bookkeeping for you. You've had many, many warnings about this practice over time. The next time you repeat an assertion without addressing earlier rebuttals I'll be suspending you.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 64 of 115 (460937)
03-20-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
03-20-2008 1:56 PM


About the topic...
Two things:

First, you can find almost any point of view represented on the Internet. If it only takes a webpage for you to beleieve something then you may as well start believing in perpetual motion machines, ghosts and alien abductions. There is far more nonsense on the Internet than even a very large group of people could ever address, so it is pretty pointless to debate against someone whose goal isn't to understand, but simply to point to and excerpt from webpages with opposing views.

In other words, no one is arguing that aren't opposing views out there. If that's your only point then there's no argument. But if you're going to advocate for those views then you have to understand them.

This means that you shouldn't be posting views you don't understand. Only introduce them into the discussion if you understand them and are prepared to argue them.

Second, your position isn't whether accepted scientific views are right or wrong, but that they're based upon faith rather than evidence and therefore can't be said to be scientific. So if you'd like to discuss whether the CMBR is modelled better by current theory or by Guillaume et. al., please propose another thread. Please reserve this thread for discusion of whether current cosmological views about the period before T=10-43 seconds are scientific or faith-based.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 1:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 94 of 115 (461337)
03-24-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
03-24-2008 3:00 PM


Re: expansion
Hi ICANT,

I'm significantly revising this post because I didn't think it set a good tone or example. The original text is hidden and can still be seen by clicking on peek.

The other participants in this thread have been telling you for some time now that you don't really seem to arguing rationally but are just digging in your heels by ignoring rebuttals, repeating the same assertions many times, and changing the subject. You've done this before, and now you're doing it again.

Here's an example of one thing you've been doing recently:

ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

Whatever you say, but you're ignoring the point that you drew your conclusions based upon observational evidence,

I drew my conclusions based on prior knowledge of ammunition.

Responses like this are forcing the participants to abandon the topic and instead begin explaining how to think rationally. When you're out of ammunition then obfuscation and avoidance are good tactics, but they're not permitted here. You've often been called a troll, and that's because it's difficult to believe that someone could be truly as clueless as you often appear to be, but it is my view that sincerity such as yours cannot be faked. But that means you're either incredibly clueless or incredibly blinded by your beliefs or maybe even just incredibly stubborn.

Whatever the case, being honest and sincere doesn't excuse blocking constructive discussion and wasting many people's time. You are ignoring the many complaints people have been making recently that, apparently seeing no constructive line of argument, you're just trying to be difficult now and so are carrying on with exactly the same arguments as before, as if people had said nothing at all.

Again, I appreciate the sincerity, but you're going to have to figure out how to participate constructively here, otherwise I'll be forced to suspend you for longer and longer periods until it becomes permanent.

Here's another example of your recent behavior, this time of changing the subject:

ICANT writes:

There is no evidence of the universe at T=0 only conclusions based on fantasy.

But here's what we've actually been talking about, what you're supposed to be responding to:

Percy in Message 85 writes:

We have models of the early universe that work very well, but they break down for times earlier than T=10-43 seconds. That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.

Quite clearly we weren't talking about T=0.

I'm usually very reluctant to take moderator action against someone I'm in active discussion with, but you've done this before, it's a known problem, and now you're doing it again. Please stop. The suspension was just for one day, we'll see you soon.

Hi ICANT,

I'm forced to slip into Admin mode because you're forcing the focus of discussion from the topic to yourself. All the other participants in this thread agree about this. You don't understand the discussion, you're not even able to keep track of what people are saying in the discussion. Here's an example of one thing you've been doing recently:

ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

Whatever you say, but you're ignoring the point that you drew your conclusions based upon observational evidence,

I drew my conclusions based on prior knowledge of ammunition.

EvC Forum will not be playing host to nonsense discussions. Either you understand things as simple as observations and inferences and are competent to participate here, or you don't and you're not.

Here's another example of your recent behavior:

ICANT writes:

There is no evidence of the universe at T=0 only conclusions based on fantasy.

But here's what we've actually been talking about, what you're supposed to be responding to:

Percy in Message 85 writes:

We have models of the early universe that work very well, but they break down for times earlier than T=10-43 seconds. That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.

Quite clearly we weren't talking about T=0.

I'm very reluctant to take moderator action against someone I'm in active discussion with, but you're not just doing this to me, you're doing it to everyone in this thread, meaning me, Cavediver, Son Goku, Rahvin and Lyx2no, so I'm going to suspend you for a day. If you're really as moronic and imbecilic as you're behaving then you don't belong here, and if you're doing it on purpose then you don't belong here, either.

When you return please be sure that you have a grip on the discussion so you're not wasting people's time, otherwise don't bother returning, I'll just suspend you again.

Edited by Admin, : Major modification.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 3:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 96 of 115 (461342)
03-24-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rahvin
03-24-2008 4:08 PM


Re: expansion
Thanks for taking such a patient approach. I'm sorry I had to take ICANT out of action for a day, but when someone forces the other participants to abandon the topic in order to explain simple rational thinking then it's already past time to take action. ICANT has been here before, he seems to do this every month or so.

Please, no replies.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2008 4:08 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 100 of 115 (461472)
03-25-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
03-25-2008 6:05 PM


Re: expansion
Hi ICANT,

I can only hope that even you realize at some level that you're not really engaging the discussion. In order to avoid the obvious implications of the bullet example, you're just spouting nonsense. It's not possible for anyone to engage you in discussion because no matter what people say, you just repeat the same things over and over again.

I'm not going to suspend you now, but will if you continue in this vein. EvC Forum is not here to play host to nonsense discussions.

Please, no replies.

Edited by Admin, : Add last line.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 03-25-2008 6:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 103 of 115 (461719)
03-27-2008 10:00 AM


Quote of the Day
Just found this wonderful quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair, US novelist & politician (1878 - 1968)

Replace the word "job" with "faith" and voilà, the tortured course of this thread is explained.

ICANT, I suspect you're not replying to Molbiogirl, who frames the question in an excellent way, because you can't figure out how to reply any differently than you already have. That's fine and probably wise. If at some point another angle of attack occurs to you then you can always return to this thread. There's no hurry.

No replies, please.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 113 of 115 (462022)
03-29-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
03-29-2008 12:20 PM


Re: Re-Analogy
Hi ICANT,

I think it's appropriate that I reply as Admin this time.

Your problems run far deeper than the Big Bang. If you do not agree that objects exist before the moment when they're first seen then there's insufficient common ground for discussion, not just on this topic but on a wide variety of topics, almost anything, in fact.

Keep in mind that EvC Forum will not play host to nonsense discussions. I know you don't think your position is nonsense, but someone has to make the determination of how ridiculous is too ridiculous, and that person is me.

One additional piece of evidence you might consider is that many who have participated in discussions with you have come away convinced you're a troll, that you can't actually be serious, that you're really just staking out a ridiculous position to disrupt discussion.

I'm convinced that you're sincere, but whether that's true or not I can't really allow you to go around disrupting discussions. This thread was sort of your last chance to make sense. Please be circumspect about what positions you argue in the future.

Please, no replies.

Edited by Admin, : Add last sentence.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2008 12:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019