Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:33 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, jar (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 106 of 115 (461853)
03-28-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
03-28-2008 8:39 AM


Re: Re-Analogy
ICANT writes:

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.

The part of the video that's significant and that we've been drawing attention to is when the bullet first appears at the left edge of the video. The question was, "Given only the evidence on the video, did the bullet exist before it can be seen?"

The "hitting the target" part of the video should be ignored. It isn't part of the analogy. I couldn't find a video of only a bullet, all I could find were videos of bullets hitting things. The analogy is about whether things we can't see still exist, not the Big Bang.

Maybe this video will work better for you. It's a compilation of meteors caught on video. It's not necessary to watch the whole thing unless you find it as fascinating as I did. You'll get the idea after the first few:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

The reason this is the answer is that all our experience throughout all time says that things that exist continue to exist, or more precisely, that matter and energy don't just suddenly spring into existence or disappear.

So did the meteor exist 5 minutes before it appeared on the video? 10 minutes before? 10 days before? 10 years before? 10 millennia before? 10 million years before?

Your answer should be, "Yes, of course it existed, though of course things would have happened to it throughout time, most likely collisions, and there must have been a time at which the meteor actually formed and before which there was no meteor, but whatever changes the meteor itself might have experienced, most certainly the matter comprising that meteor always existed."

The universe is now at T=4.32×1017 seconds (13.7 billion years). We know it exists because we can look around and see it.

Did the universe exist at T=1017 seconds (about 10 billion years ago)? Yes, of course, we can look out into the universe and see it as it was 10 billion years ago.

Did the universe exist at T=1016 seconds (when it was only 316 million years old). Yes, of course. Though we don't have direct observational evidence, we can deduce that it existed from the later observational evidence. If the universe had actually begun at T=1016 seconds then we would see something much different when we look out into the heavens.

Did the universe exist at T=1015 seconds (when it was only 31 million years old)? Yes, of course, for the same reasons.

Did the universe exist at T=1014 seconds (when it was only 3.1 million years old)? Yes, of course, for the same reasons.

Obviously we can carry this back and conclude that the universe existed at T=1013, T=1012, and so forth, continuing on down to T=10-5, T=10-10 until we finally get to T=10-43 seconds.

The thing that no one can understand is why you think there's something special about T=10-43 seconds. If the universe didn't exist before T=10-43 seconds then it wouldn't be T=10-43 seconds, it would be T=0.

We do have a pretty good idea of what the universe was like at T=10-43 seconds. It was an extremely hot, dense plasma of quarks, photons, etc. Prior to T=10-43 seconds we do not have a good idea of the nature of the universe, because we don't have accurate models of what happens to the universe below the Planck scale (the very, very tiny scale).

Clarifying a couple things now:

The universe may or may not have existed prior to T=10-43 according to Rahvin.

That isn't representative of what Rahvin said, and you quoted him and showed how misrepresentative this is. Rahvin never gave an equivocal "maybe, maybe not" type of answer. While conceding the possibility that the universe didn't exist prior to T=10-43, simply because nothing's impossible, he called it very unlikely.

When we get to the unknown region, whatever that point is there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for anything to be there.

Did you have any direct observational evidence that the meteor existed prior to when you first saw it? 10 years before your first saw it? 20 years? Of course not. Do you believe it existed 10 and 20 years ago? Of course you do. That's because human beings understand beginning at about 5 months of age that objects not in view still exist.

We can see the universe today and we can see it billions of years ago. And for the period before that, all our experience says that objects not in our direct view continue to exist. The evidence that the universe existed is as strong for T=10-43 as it is for T=10-42, for T=10-41, for T=10-40, and so forth. You're drawing an arbitrary line and saying before T=10-43 seconds the universe did not exist, and that makes no sense.

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.

First, we're not talking about the universe appearing. That's not what happened at T=10-43 seconds, that's what happened at T=0, and we're not talking about T=0. We're focusing on your claim that it can only be accepted on faith that the universe existed before T=10-43 seconds. As has been explained, this is equivalent to believing that things we can't directly see don't exist.

Second, I could explain why your analogy to abiogenesis is misconstrued, but let's stay focused on this topic. It makes no sense to muddy the waters with a poorly drawn analogy to yet another topic on which we disagree.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2008 8:39 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2008 12:54 PM Percy has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 107 of 115 (461880)
03-28-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
03-28-2008 8:39 AM


Re: Re-Analogy
Maybe someone can explain.

We've been explaining this, in a dozen different ways from a dozen different angles, for some time now.

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.

As Percy mentioned, the striking of the target is irrelevant. The point of the video was that you conclude that the bullet exists prior to entering the frame of the video, despite no direct observation.

I think this shows once again that you're hung up on the "bang" part of the Big Bang model. As we've told you, a conventional explosion is not comparable to the expansion of the Universe. As we've said before, the term "Big Bang" was originally used mockingly, is not a good, descriptive name of the model, and causes a great deal of confusion for many people, including you. It's unfortunate that the name stuck.

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.

If bullets were not in existence prior to the video being made (or rather, if you were ignorant of them), would you conclude that the bullet winked into existence at the very moment it comes into view?

If the object were not a bullet, but rather a mysterious object of indeterminate origin, would you conclude that it may not have existed prior to coming into view? Would you have concluded that it was likely at rest immediately prior to coming into view? Would you have concluded that it suddenly makes a 76 degree turn immediately after leaving the camera's view, travels at a completely different speed for exactly three seconds, and then disappears?

You would not, unless you're insane. You would still conclude that the mysterious object of indeterminate origin very likely (almost certainly) existed travelling at a similar speed to that observed in the video both slightly before and slightly after your direct observation.

The universe may or may not have existed prior to T=10-43 according to Rahvin.

In Re: expansion (Message 95) Rahvin says:

quote:
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.

Once again you latch onto individual words and completely lose the meaning of a statement becasue the individual words sound like they agree with you. Stop it.

"May or may not have existed" is a very poor representation of my statement, as is shown by your very own quote. All knowledge is tentative - it's entirely possible that we are all living in the Matrix, or that I'm asleep and you are an unfortunate figment of my masochistic imagination. The likelihood of the Universe not existing at a magic line just before T=10^-43 when we know it does exist at T=10^-43 is roughly the same as the likelihood that I'm about to get a phone call from Morpheus. I wouldn't hold my breath.

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.

It's existence isn't what's really called into question, ICANT. It's state is. We can't model the Universe prior to T=10^-43, but we have every reason to believe it's there from the evidence that shows us the Universe exists at T=10^-43. The reason is exactly the same as the reason you know (or should know) that the bullet in the video very likely existed just prior to coming into view.

Imagine a ball of clay. You can describe very accurately the shape of the clay while you're observing it. Now put the clay in a box. You can still make very reasonable conclusions about the shape of the clay - it should be very similar to the shape it had when you put it in the box. Now shake the box, vigorously. You can no longer describe the shape - you lack sufficient information to describe the clay...does the clay now magically not exist?

That's what you're proposing, ICANT. The Unvierse is the ball of clay. We can describe it very accurately all the way back to T=10^-43. Prior to that, the model breaks down - we don't know enough about the conditions of the Universe to be able to describe it, just as you don't know enough about the ball of clay after it's been shaken in the box. But saying that the Universe didn't exist prior to some magical barrier at T=10^-43 is as ridiculous as saying the clay stopped existing when you shook it.

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.

They aren't even remotely comparable. Abiogenesis doesn't involve spontaneous appearance of matter, which is what you're suggesting. Abiogenesis concerns the possible spontaneous rearranging of existant nonliving chemical componds into the state we would identify as "living," which basically just means self-replicating and metabolizing. The only similarity is the word "spontaneous," in which case you could view a trip to the movies as just as effective an analogy.

I want to make this as simple as possible, ICANT, so I'm going to repeat my earlier question:

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.

Which of these is a likely conclusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2008 8:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 108 of 115 (461883)
03-28-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-28-2008 9:47 AM


Re-Analogy
Thanks Percy,

Percy writes:

The part of the video that's significant and that we've been drawing attention to is when the bullet first appears at the left edge of the video. The question was, "Given only the evidence on the video, did the bullet exist before it can be seen?"

Worded this way my explanation was sufficient.

If you change the phrase "on the video", to "only on the video".

Then I would have to say "I don't Know". I believe it did but I have no proof.

Percy writes:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

I like them all but I will refer to the second one.

The screen is blank sky and the meteor appears. To me it seems to appear out of an absence of anything.

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

Percy writes:

Did you have any direct observational evidence that the meteor existed prior to when you first saw it? 10 years before your first saw it? 20 years? Of course not. Do you believe it existed 10 and 20 years ago? Of course you do. That's because human beings understand beginning at about 5 months of age that objects not in view still exist.

I guess I am not a human being.
Prior to the meteor appearing on the video (meteor #2) there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for the meteor to be there. I can believe that it did but that is not evidence.

Percy writes:

We do have a pretty good idea of what the universe was like at T=10-43 seconds. It was an extremely hot, dense plasma of quarks, photons, etc. Prior to T=10-43 seconds we do not have a good idea of the nature of the universe, because we don't have accurate models of what happens to the universe below the Planck scale (the very, very tiny scale).

Before I get back into this I need to know if we are talking about Hartle Hawking hypothesis or Standard Big Bang Theory.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 9:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 1:56 PM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 109 of 115 (461897)
03-28-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
03-28-2008 12:54 PM


Re: Re-Analogy
ICANT writes:

Percy writes:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

I like them all but I will refer to the second one.

The screen is blank sky and the meteor appears. To me it seems to appear out of an absence of anything.

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

Let's not use the word "prove". Science doesn't deal in proofs. Do you believe the evidence supports, as at least one of the viable possibilities, that the meteor existed before it first came into view?

Before I get back into this I need to know if we are talking about Hartle Hawking hypothesis or Standard Big Bang Theory.

We're not talking about Hartle/Hawking now, we weren't talking about Hartle/Hawking before, and everyone keeps telling you we're not talking about Hartle/Hawking. The only one who keeps introducing Hartle/Hawking is you, so why do you keep asking?

As to whether we're talking about the standard Big Bang theory, no, we're not. Most cosmologists today accept inflation, which modifies the standard Big Bang theory to include a period of super-rapid expansion by a factor of about 1043 between T=10-35 and T=10-32 seconds.

But Hartle/Hawking or not, standard Big Bang or not, inflation or not, they're all irrelevant to the question of whether we have evidence supporting the existence of the universe prior to T=10-43 seconds.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2008 1:29 AM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 110 of 115 (461977)
03-29-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
03-28-2008 1:56 PM


Re-Analogy
Thanks Percy,

Percy writes:

We're not talking about Hartle/Hawking now, we weren't talking about Hartle/Hawking before, and everyone keeps telling you we're not talking about Hartle/Hawking. The only one who keeps introducing Hartle/Hawking is you, so why do you keep asking?

That is all cavediver ever talks about.

This is response to a message by Son Goku in the preceding msg 150.

Here

cavediver says, I agree, it's a tough one. I guess I've always gone with Hartle Hawking, as it seems more in tune with the spirit (or my perception of the spirit) of FRW and GR in general. If you can appreciate the globe (north pole, south pole) analogy of a closed FRW, you have gained a real insight into GR. You can then take that picture and easily expand into the current FLRW picture.
Talking about pushing through the singularity, while quite possibly what happened, does not give such the large-scale insight. So I guess I'm more reacting out of defense of my own presentation, and others may well say that FRW with its singularity is more in tune with your picture than mine, where I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary.

cavediver ignores the singularity of the standard model.

cavediver SILENTLY invokes the No-Boundry of Hartle Hawking hypothesis without telling you he did.

Unless there is something I misunderstand about, "I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary".

Percy writes:

But Hartle/Hawking or not, standard Big Bang or not, inflation or not, they're all irrelevant to the question of whether we have evidence supporting the existence of the universe prior to T=10-43 seconds.

I thought it did have a bearing on the question, but maybe I am wrong and you can straighten me out.

The standard Big Bang with inflation.
The universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.
GR says there should be a singularity in our past.
Singularity is a place where the math breaks down and we don't know what is there.

This model requires a beginning.

The Hartle Hawking No-Boundry hypothesis has a self-contained universe in imaginary time and all it has to do is begin to expand. Thus Hawking's claim he has proved we don't need God.

This model does not require a beginning.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 1:56 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM ICANT has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 111 of 115 (461992)
03-29-2008 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
03-29-2008 1:29 AM


Re: Re-Analogy
ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.

The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?

Where this discussion goes depends a great deal upon your answer. If you say no then while perhaps there will be a couple additional forays trying to convince you how ridiculous your position is, if you won't be convinced then you won't be convinced, and there's no point pursuing it. The goal here isn't to convince people with irrational viewpoints that they're wrong. The less rational the person the less effective evidence and rational argument will be. They weren't led to their position by such a path, so they certainly won't be led away from it by such a path.

The real goal here at EvC Forum is to engage arguments and positions related to the creation/evolution controversy that are wrong but that lay people (like school board members) find effective. Your position is ludicrous on its face, and I would have no concern at all if I learned that you planned to address a school board meeting on the science curriculum and argue that things quite possibly don't exist before they're first seen.

So if that's to be your position then that's fine, I won't spend much effort trying to talk you out of it. But as a moderator, and more importantly as webmaster, I take seriously this site's goal of not hosting nonsense discussions, so it is my responsibility that nonsense views like yours don't draw significantly on this site's resources.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2008 1:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2008 12:20 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 04-07-2008 11:51 AM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 112 of 115 (462016)
03-29-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
03-29-2008 7:52 AM


Re-Analogy
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.
The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?

In previous messages I satated:

Message 108
Percy writes:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

I like them all but I will refer to the second one.

The screen is blank sky and the meteor appears. To me it seems to appear out of an absence of anything.

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

You did not like my word prove.

Message 108
Percy writes:

Did you have any direct observational evidence that the meteor existed prior to when you first saw it? 10 years before your first saw it? 20 years? Of course not. Do you believe it existed 10 and 20 years ago? Of course you do. That's because human beings understand beginning at about 5 months of age that objects not in view still exist.

I guess I am not a human being.
Prior to the meteor appearing on the video (meteor #2) there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for the meteor to be there. I can believe that it did but that is not evidence.

You didn't like those answers.

You state in Message 109

Percy writes:

Let's not use the word "prove". Science doesn't deal in proofs. Do you believe the evidence supports, as at least one of the viable possibilities, that the meteor existed before it first came into view?

I did not respond to this and will now. I thought theories did not deal in proofs. I thought science dealt in facts.

In Message 106 you stated.

We can see the universe today and we can see it billions of years ago. And for the period before that, all our experience says that objects not in our direct view continue to exist. The evidence that the universe existed is as strong for T=10-43 as it is for T=10-42, for T=10-41, for T=10-40, and so forth. You're drawing an arbitrary line and saying before T=10-43 seconds the universe did not exist, and that makes no sense.

There is no visible, testable evidence for anything prior to T=10-43 seconds.

The only way for anything to be there is found in the mind of a human being. You have to believe it is there.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Admin, posted 03-29-2008 12:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


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

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 114 of 115 (462699)
04-07-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
03-29-2008 7:52 AM


Re-Analogy
Hi Percy,

Sorry it took so long to get back to the topic I had many pressing problems to attend too.

Percy writes:

ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.

In Message 108 I stated:

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

I think I said I believe it existed.

Percy writes:

The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?

I will go with the above answer, I believe it existed.

In Message 106 You state:

Your answer should be, "Yes, of course it existed, though of course things would have happened to it throughout time, most likely collisions, and there must have been a time at which the meteor actually formed and before which there was no meteor, but whatever changes the meteor itself might have experienced, most certainly the matter comprising that meteor always existed."
Bolding mine.

Can I conclude from this that you believe the universe has always existed in some form?

If so I agree with you.

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."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 04-07-2008 3:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 115 of 115 (462709)
04-07-2008 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
04-07-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Re-Analogy
ICANT writes:

I think I said I believe it existed.

That wasn't the question. About the meteor, the question was whether you believe that the first sighting of the meteor is evidence that it existed before that point in time. About the bullet, the question was whether you believe seeing the bullet enter the left side of the screen is evidence that it existed before that point in time.

If you don't think seeing something is evidence that it existed before you saw it, then there's no point talking to you.

ICANT writes:

In Message 106 You state:

Your answer should be, "Yes, of course it existed, though of course things would have happened to it throughout time, most likely collisions, and there must have been a time at which the meteor actually formed and before which there was no meteor, but whatever changes the meteor itself might have experienced, most certainly the matter comprising that meteor always existed."
Bolding mine.

Can I conclude from this that you believe the universe has always existed in some form?

No. I wasn't making any comment at all about the universe. Please stop acting like a troll.


AbE: I'm going to explain the painfully obvious of why you're behaving like a troll.

Imagine that you and I are standing on a street corner. Gesturing across the intersection I say to you, "I've never seen that sign before, when did they put that up?"

You reply, "That sign's always been there."

And I respond, "You mean that when Columbus discovered America that sign was already there?"

Which obviously you did not mean.

Just as obviously, from context I was talking about the meteor and its immediate history, not making a comment intended to apply across eternity.

Either you're aware of obvious contexts like this and are a troll and so shouldn't be allowed to participate, or you're oblivious to the obvious contexts and aren't qualified to participate.

So stop saying things that can only be interpreted as meaning you're a troll or an idiot, because in neither case can you be permitted to continue contributing in this fashion. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you've been doing this for months.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add "AbE" comment.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 04-07-2008 11:51 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019