Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

Hi Percy, Message 85
I was referencing your statement "That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then". Which only speaks to T=0 not before. I drew my conclusions based on prior knowledge of ammunition. Message 74Everything I discussed in msg 81 was possibilities of things that could have happened. Nothing changed the conclusion that the bullet was made to fly through the air by the discharge of the powder. I concluded the bullet existed before it came into view because I know a bullet has to be created to exist. It did not come from an absence of anything. Neither did it come from imaginary time.
It was created by man and directed at the target.There is no evidence of the universe at T=0 only conclusions based on fantasy.Cosmologist conclude it existed before it came into view because the alternative is unthinkable.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, The bullet in the video leads me to believe it existed the moment it came off the assembly line in an ammunition plant or someone packing his own bullet, which is that particular bullets point of origin. Anything else is mechanics. You can conclude the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 if you want to. You do not have any evidence other than your assumption. The only thing you have is your faith that it did exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Percy, Percy you have pointed out that you believe, have faith in your conclusions that is based on circumstantual evidence that the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 .As I pointed out I know where the bullet came from. It was manufactured.You have no idea where the universe came from or even if it existed at T=0.In the absence of any evidence you have to exercise faith that the universe is there.I have asked the question several times. What is at T=0? The answer is we don't know.Well if you don't know what is there then to believe the universe is there is to do so by faith.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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: 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: But here's what we've actually been talking about, what you're supposed to be responding to: 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. Edited by Admin, : Major modification.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You have not shown how those two statements are different. Both the Big bang model and the bullet video have an unknown origin. Both involve making logical conclusions from limited evidence. Neither involve any statement of faith. Your statements surrounding the bullet are based on your knowledge of objective evidence relating to bullets, but somehow you have an aversion to using exactly the same sort of reasoning as it applies to cosmological models.It is very likely that the Universe exists between T=0 and T=10^-43. My evidence for this conclusion is that the universe exists immediately after T=10^-43. While it is remotely possible that the Universe simply winked into existence at T=10^-43, there is nothing to suggest this, so I conclude that the trend (existence) likely continues into the unknown region.Let's try to be even more simplistic.Situation: Object x is observed over a limited timeframe. Its point of origin is not definitively observed - that is, as observation began, object x existed.Which of these is a likely conclusion? Which conclusions are based on evidence? Which are based on faith?A) Object x existed only for the time observed. Prior to being observed, it did not exist, and it appeared by unknown means at the exact moment the observations began.B) Object x likely existed immediately prior to being observed, though it is possible object x existed in a differnt state than the state observed.C) Object x was likely (certainly?) created by some unknown intelligent entity.D) Object x was created by (insert nonexistent fairytale character here)E) If object x is moving, or has a temperature, it's state immediately preceding observation is very likely similar to its state during the observation. Any trends (acceleration, etc) likely continued prior to the object being observed.

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

Hey Rahvin.I thought of something as I was reading your reply to ICANT.ICANT's reliance on "what he knows" to answer the "bullet question" is obviously analogous to "what a physicist knows" when he answers the the "T < 10^-43 question".ICANT uses "common sense" stuff (that he learned just as a matter of course over his lifetime) to figure out that the bullet (1) didn't just appear (2) was shot from a gun, etc. just as a physicist uses "physicist common sense" stuff (that he learned earning his PhD) to figure out that the universe (1) didn't just appear (2) was small/hot/dense, etc.But ICANT doesn't get the analogy.I imagine ICANT's reply will be something along the lines of "Well, I know a bullet didn't just appear. Of course I know that! But YOU don't know that the universe didn't just appear."And I think that's at the heart of the misunderstanding."Of course the bullet didn't just appear." vs. "Of course the universe didn't just appear."ICANT will refuse to admit a bullet "just appeared" but will not admit that the universe "just appeared" (because, of course, in his mind, it did).So. My question to ICANT is this:Prove to me that the bullet didn't just appear. Given ONLY the evidence in the video, DEDUCE that the bullet didn't just appear.Because that's what physicists do every day. Given ONLY the evidence, nothing else, they DEDUCE what happened.And no fair saying something like, "Well, I know that there are guns."There are no guns in the video. Prove to me that the bullet didn't just appear.

Hello molbiogirl:Good idea, but ICANT has already found his refuge form your logic. He will (has) bury (ied) himself so deeply in this most important of all points that the bullet was created being analogous to God’s creation of the initial Universe ” which you are blind to ” that your meager human reasoning will never get him to acknowledge a word of what you’ve so ably stated. One has nothing to do with the other, yet no answer to your prodding will be forth coming.You’re reasonable. He ain’t. You’re using a church key on a wrecking bar fix.Edited by lyx2no, : Tense.

---

KindlyAre you gonna' eat that donut?

Hi molbiogirl, Why will I refuse to admit a bullet "just appeared"? It did.Why will I refuse to admit the universe "just appeared"? It did. I don't think I mentioned gun at anytime.I said Message 75 "
Powder is discharged to cause the bullet to fly through the air"If you will read my posts you will find I never mentioned gun. (This is the first time.) But the bullet did just appear in the video. I did observe the bullet and know it was a bullet in the video.But I have pretty good evidence that a bullet is manufactured in an ammunition plant or by a gun smith. Since you can go into any sporting goods store and buy ammunition common sense says bullets exist. There is visible, testable, see able evidence for them.This type of evidence does not exist for the physicist to make his conclusion the universe exists prior to T=10^-43.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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

Let's try this again. There is no evidence of powder. Video only. How do you know it is a bullet? There is no evidence of ammunition plants/gun smiths. Video only. To repeat: Use the evidence at hand. The video. That is the ONLY evidence you have. DEDUCE what happened BEFORE the video based ONLY on the video evidence.Good luck!

Still waiting.

Just found this wonderful quote: Replace the word "job" with "faith" and voil, 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

Hi molbiogirl, Please don't hold your breath. If the answer I gave you in Message 99 for which I received a suspended suspension is not satisfactory you are out of luck. I have no other answer and do not care to tempt another suspension.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Maybe someone can explain.I am having a real problem understanding the analogy of the bullet hitting the target, being comparable to the universe appearing could someone please explain.My problem.
The bullet is a known product that is manufactured by man. Bullets were in existence prior to the video being made. Prior to the video being made there was visible, testable, see able evidence for bullets.The universe may or may not have existed prior to T=10^-43 according to Rahvin.In Message 95 Rahvin says: When we get to the unknown region, whatever that point is there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for anything to be there. I conclude that since there is no evidence for something to be there, to believe that there is requires faith.I have thought long and hard to try to come up with an analogy that would be equal to the universe appearing and the only thing I can come up with is abiogenesis. Those two would be comparable.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."