Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and the visible past.
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 76 of 89 (583201)
09-25-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
09-25-2010 8:14 AM


Re: So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
Buz writes:
Three things; I said, "generally," meaning there are exceptions here and there, but not by and large.
But you have not presented any evidence to support that. Let's see if I can find order on a larger scale.
How about this scale?
Buz writes:
Intelligence and long time beneficial order are not the norm in exceptions.
There you go adding yet more totally unrelated positions. Long term? Beneficial? Intelligence?
None of those has been required in any of the examples, and quite honestly, not one of them is relevant or important to this topic.
Long Term in relation to?
Beneficial to?
Intelligent as?
The only thing you have added so far have been undefined terms and unsupported assertions.
How about finally providing some support for "the fulfilled propecies[sic], archeological evidence and cultural observations" you keep claiming exist.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 09-25-2010 8:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 77 of 89 (583544)
09-27-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by DevilsAdvocate
09-25-2010 8:39 AM


Re: So present the evidence Buz!!!!!!!!!
DevilsAdvocate writes:
That is why Cavediver and others are asking you to define your terms. Not because they don't know what term's like 'order', 'intelligence' and 'eternity' mean in the colloquial, every-day use of these terms, but because at a scientific, very accurate and precise level of describing reality these terms are so vague that they make absolutely no sense in these contexts.
Cavediver and others, by now, should know what Buz means by these terms, and for that matter, any lay member. The context usually determines the meanings intended. For example, in the science fora, even science buffs may be discussing whether the Universe is an infinite universe or if it is finite. Obviously the context of this question implies the term, infinite not to mean since the singularity event, but the term infinite as even the lay person would understand it.
Btw, I took the time to view a couple of your link videos and scanned some others. I see a lot about matmatical based conclusions. I see all kinds of mystery, like this Turrin (spelling) fellow even regarded as being matmatically inspired by a supernatural entity for enlightment. Well, according to the Biblical record, if such an enlightment from some such entity, goes counter to the Biblical record, it's inspiration likely comes from a demonic entity. These beings are depicted in the Bible as "angels of light."

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 09-25-2010 8:39 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 78 of 89 (584475)
10-02-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-19-2010 6:07 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
He does too. And muc the 6000 year limit of the xians. Hindu knows that the world is billions of years old and was formed by expansion of a small sphere. He also believes that the world expands and contracts periodically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 6:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM RCS has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 89 (584479)
10-02-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 11:03 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world.
But thiis is so obviously untrue that I am baffled as to why you should even try to pretennd that it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 80 of 89 (584502)
10-02-2010 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RCS
10-02-2010 2:04 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Welcome to EvC RCS.
Of course, the Hindu Creation myths are useless as science but it is interesting that like many other myths they do not limit the age of the earth or universe.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RCS, posted 10-02-2010 2:04 AM RCS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2010 12:25 PM jar has not replied
 Message 82 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:08 AM jar has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 922 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 81 of 89 (584520)
10-02-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
10-02-2010 10:27 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Somewhere I remember that some Hindus state the universe is 691 billion years old although from what I understand most reckon the universe to be eternal.
Now if they and the YEC's could just come to a compromise, let's say 13.5 billion years, then all would be well with the universe (so far as age) IMHO.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:15 AM anglagard has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 82 of 89 (584996)
10-05-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
10-02-2010 10:27 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Pal, Hindus and only Hindus specifically accept that:
1. World is made immortal, created matter. Why does it not have sceintific value?
2. Matter possesses energy and is rver mobile. After all, E=Mc2 is exactly that. Since matter is never static, therefore no static frame of reference is possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
3. That matter has inertia which resists change and motion. Why does it not have sceintific value?
4. That creation out of nothing is not possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
5. Universe expands and contracts periodicall. But never does it collapse to a so called singularity. Why does it not have sceintific value?
6. Hindus believe in a cyclic universe, and whatever can be explainede by BB can be explained by it. Why is one off BB more sceintific than periodical expansion and contraction. This model is theoretically possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
7. Hindus hold that the expansion of universe starts with a BANG, clearly, explitly specified. Why does it not have sceintific value?
8. Hindus believe that even universe undergoes an evolution. If you look aroound you will find stars, galaxies etc at various stages of formation. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Lastly, why BB too is not a myth?
Pal, before passing a blanket judgement you should know in detail what you are judging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Nij, posted 10-05-2010 6:25 AM RCS has not replied
 Message 86 by jar, posted 10-05-2010 10:08 AM RCS has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 83 of 89 (584997)
10-05-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by anglagard
10-02-2010 12:25 PM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Hindus do believe that universe has been and shall be for ever. The only way to shake this position is to re-write thermodynamics.
The largest time span Hindus posit is like 140 trillions of years. If that does boggle you then recall that that even this is a fleeting moment in the backdrop of an infinite time span.
Can pure sceince tell us:
Why was there a singularity?
Why did it explode unless it was an unstable entity?
How an unstable entity can help but transform itself into something more stable immidiately it formed?
How do we determine that the universe is really stable, not meta stable or dynamic?
What is beyond the 13.8 billion light year "horizon". What will you observe if you transpose yourself by say, 8 blys? Will you find more galaxies and lose sight of a few others? Will you stumble upon another "universe" which is another cluster of galaxies?
Which philosophy even attempts to answer them, except Hindu philosophies?
Edited by RCS, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2010 12:25 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Nij, posted 10-05-2010 5:54 AM RCS has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 84 of 89 (585020)
10-05-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RCS
10-05-2010 12:15 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Hindus do believe that universe has been and shall be for ever. The only way to shake this position is to re-write thermodynamics
Actually, no, thermodynamics does shake that position along with the rest of physics.
This is a property of our universe. Time has been finite; there's not much ability to change that outside rewriting the (science-y) definition of time.
Why was there a singularity
Because our mathematical extrapolation models converge to one.
Why did it explode unless it was an unstable entity
1. It DID NOT explode!
2. It very well could have been unstable; no evidence is available to suggest either way.
How an unstable entity can help but transform itself into something more stable immidiately it formed
Because the transfer from instability to stability often requires passing through an even more unstable phase. That metastability -- even though it is not a global stable point, it is a local stable point -- means that not everything goes immediately to the point of maximum stability.
How do we determine that the universe is really stable, not meta stable or dynamic
We can't. Why? Because we know the universe is dynamic. We know it is metastable.
What is beyond the 13.8 billion light year "horizon". What will you observe if you transpose yourself by say, 8 blys? Will you find more galaxies and lose sight of a few others? Will you stumble upon another "universe" which is another cluster of galaxies
It's actually a 46 billion lightyear horizon (give or take); inflation happened since then and all that stuff.
Second, we don't know. It's entirely possible that space keeps going "exactly the same" forever in every direction; this is certainly supported by the apparent lack of an universal gravitational centre.
Third, whether it's a new universe or the same one depends on a couple of things like your own semantic ideas and whether our universe is truly a closed system (which would mean nothing can leave and thereby making it impossible to "stumble upon" another one) and other things like that.
Fourth, "another universe" is not simply another cluster of galaxies. The two are two separate objects and ideas, not necessarily mutually inclusive.
Which philosophy even attempts to answer them, except Hindu philosophies
Natural philosophy does; you know, the whole basis of science?
You're asking questions that a decent basic background knowledge can provide a good answer to. And making a couple of statements that just aren't correct at all.
Care to try serious discussion instead of setting up apologeticist targets?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:15 AM RCS has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 85 of 89 (585025)
10-05-2010 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RCS
10-05-2010 12:08 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
World is made immortal, created matter. Why does it not have sceintific value?
There's no evidence that it was "created", only formed.
There's no evidence -- quite the opposite -- that it is or will be immortal.
Matter possesses energy and is rver mobile. After all, E=Mc2 is exactly that. Since matter is never static, therefore no static frame of reference is possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
E = mc2 states that mass is energy, not that it possesses energy.
Matter can indeed be exactly static. I think there's a rather large nonzero probablity that at least one particle in the universe is static at any point in time.
That matter has inertia which resists change and motion. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Links or quotes please. I have yet to see any religious text discuss the concept of inertia, nor was it ever mentioned in my science history lessons.
That creation out of nothing is not possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because something is not scientific simply for accepting a scientific conclusion.
Universe expands and contracts periodicall. But never does it collapse to a so called singularity. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because that's not evidenced at all by anything. You state as fact something which is inherently unknowable as such.
Hindus believe in a cyclic universe, and whatever can be explainede by BB can be explained by it. Why is one off BB more sceintific than periodical expansion and contraction. This model is theoretically possible. Why does it not have sceintific value?
No, not everything explained by a Big Bang can be explained by a cyclic universe.
Second, neither is considered more scientific than the other. But invoking cyclic universe involves more entites than a single one.
Hindus hold that the expansion of universe starts with a BANG, clearly, explitly specified. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because there wasn't a bang at all. That means you basically believe in something that is impossible.
Hindus believe that even universe undergoes an evolution. If you look aroound you will find stars, galaxies etc at various stages of formation. Why does it not have sceintific value?
Because simply believing something after the fact is not enough to make something scientific.
Christians, Sikhs, pagans all accept science. That doesn't make them scientific either.
Lastly, why BB too is not a myth
Because there's evidence of the phenomenon we call the Big Bang.
Rather a complete failure, I think.
Edited by Nij, : Fix coding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:08 AM RCS has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 86 of 89 (585059)
10-05-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RCS
10-05-2010 12:08 AM


Re: A purely scientific background is not the whole picture of existence.
Because absolutely none of those ARE of scientific value. They are just like the equally invalid claims made by Islam and Judaism and even my own religion, Christianity.
To be of scientific value you need to have an explanation for the things you mention, the models and explanations. You need to show the model of why matter and energy can be exchanged, why something has inertia, produce the evidence that the universe expands and contracts and the model that explains why it expands and contracts and you have to present the model that explains why stars and galaxies evolve.
Nothing in what you posted is science. It is simply dogma and unsupported assertion.
And lastly, before you ask me why the BB is not a myth, you need to learn a few terms and a little about what science is. I don't expect you to know science in detail but you need to understand why asking "Lastly, why BB too is not a myth?" is a silly question.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RCS, posted 10-05-2010 12:08 AM RCS has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 87 of 89 (585079)
10-05-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2010 2:49 AM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
Dr Adequate writes:
Buzsaw writes:
disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world.
But thiis is so obviously untrue that I am baffled as to why you should even try to pretennd that it is true.
I forgot to include the phrase, "by and large," which I usually use when aluding to this. By and large in the real optically observable world it is true and one reason I reject the ToE.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 2:49 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 10-05-2010 5:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 89 (585082)
10-05-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
10-05-2010 5:43 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
By and large in the real optically observable world it is true and one reason I reject the ToE.
By and large? That's how you fixed it?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 5:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 7:40 PM onifre has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 89 of 89 (585095)
10-05-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
10-05-2010 5:53 PM


Re: Visionary Models Of The Alleged Past
onifre writes:
By and large? That's how you fixed it?
Laughing you head off doesn't refute a thing. It leaves me one up in the debate.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 10-05-2010 5:53 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024