Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
38 online now:
DrJones*, jar (2 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,309 Year: 22,345/19,786 Month: 908/1,834 Week: 408/500 Day: 41/66 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
Philip Johnson
Junior Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 24
Joined: 12-29-2010


Message 46 of 248 (598224)
12-29-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coragyps
12-29-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Young or old universe
I just find it amusing that evolutionists (within the last 30 years) have come to agree with creationists that the universe got to be 75% of it's current size in less than a week.

Jar, you can google "cosmology inflation" for more information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 12-29-2010 5:15 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:20 PM Philip Johnson has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5587
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 248 (598238)
12-29-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:09 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Philip Johnson writes:
I am referring to the time it took for the universe to be 50 billion light years in size. Evolution teaches that as a result of Inflation this occurred in less that a trillionth of a second, whereas creationists say it took several days.

Actually, evolution (as usually understood) is about biology and not about cosmology. You seem to be mixing things up.

As for cosmology, as far as I know the inflation model is an hypothesis. It is not settled science.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:09 PM Philip Johnson has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 48 of 248 (598239)
12-29-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Of course to say that "evolutionists (within the last 30 years) have come to agree with creationists that the universe got to be 75% of it's current size in less than a week" is simply word salad, meaningless as well as being factually wrong and another example of Creationist misrepresentation.

The first stars did not even evolve until millions of years after the Big Bang.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:31 PM Philip Johnson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:26 PM jar has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6897
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 248 (598242)
12-29-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:09 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Evolution teaches that as a result of Inflation this occurred in less that a trillionth of a second, whereas creationists say it took several days.

Can you explain what evolution has to do with cosmology?

Please put your answer in a coherent form so that we might understand you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:09 PM Philip Johnson has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-29-2010 10:05 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Philip Johnson
Junior Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 24
Joined: 12-29-2010


Message 50 of 248 (598244)
12-29-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
12-29-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Jar, do you believe that the universe was 75% of the size it is now within a second of the Big Bang?

You said you disagreed with my statement that "evolutionists (within the last 30 years) have come to agree with creationists that the universe got to be 75% of it's current size in less than a week". I did not mention stars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:29 PM Philip Johnson has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 51 of 248 (598246)
12-29-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 6:26 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Jar, do you believe that the universe was 75% of the size it is now within a second of the Big Bang?

You said you disagreed with my statement that "evolutionists (within the last 30 years) have come to agree with creationists that the universe got to be 75% of it's current size in less than a week". I did not mention stars.

I think that is just word salad, something with no meaning. What does the size of the universe mean and what would it have to do with anything?

The universe is far more than simply volume. And the Creationist descriptions and myths do not correspond with anything that has been seen.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:26 PM Philip Johnson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:31 PM jar has responded

  
Philip Johnson
Junior Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 24
Joined: 12-29-2010


Message 52 of 248 (598248)
12-29-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
12-29-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Jar, I am just asking a question. You can skip the derogatory remarks.

Do you believe that the universe was 75% of the size it is now within a second of the Big Bang?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:33 PM Philip Johnson has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 53 of 248 (598250)
12-29-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 6:31 PM


Re: Young or old universe
No idea even what that means. Sorry but that is just word salad.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:31 PM Philip Johnson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:38 PM jar has responded

  
Philip Johnson
Junior Member (Idle past 3178 days)
Posts: 24
Joined: 12-29-2010


Message 54 of 248 (598255)
12-29-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
12-29-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Jar, the universe is 90+ billion light years in size at present. Do you believe it was 50+ billion light years in size within a second after the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:33 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 12-29-2010 6:51 PM Philip Johnson has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 55 of 248 (598257)
12-29-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Actually I think it is even bigger than that right now.

Do you believe it was 50+ billion light years in size within a second after the Big Bang?

No idea, but that simply has no meaning anyway.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:38 PM Philip Johnson has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-30-2010 9:49 AM jar has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 248 (598263)
12-29-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-25-2010 10:15 AM


Re: WOW!!!
Cavediver writes:

quite typical actually - we find that in 97.2% of universes, their observable size doesn't coincide with their age. Strange, but true...

With all due respect, the multi-verse theory (imo hypothesis, if that) as well as BB theory assumes some ambiguous priories no more plausible than some SM incompatible creationist priories.

Reality gets swept under the mathematical rug.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 10:15 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2010 8:34 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2032
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 57 of 248 (598265)
12-29-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
12-29-2010 7:39 PM


Re: WOW!!!
Reality gets swept under the mathematical rug.

Really Buz, this tired shit again? Please explain how the math is flawed, show your work.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2010 9:31 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 248 (598268)
12-29-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by DrJones*
12-29-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Which Life Priory Most Probable?
Dr Jones writes:

Please explain how the math is flawed, show your work.

There comes a time when the math and reality become incompatible beyond imagination. There comes a time when the math goes beyond the probability of the Buzsaw hypothesis which is more realistically compatible with the basic (abe: I say basic and fundamental) observable laws of science and probability theory.

The definition of life rests on one or the other. Imo probability favors the Buzsaw priory of life and the Universe.

ABE: Perhaps it would be helpful cite one plausible probability theory. In the Bayesian Probability Theory, there are two views; the subjective and the objective.

Objective and subjective Bayesian probabilitiesBroadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the 'state of knowledge' concept in different ways. For objectivists, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency.

Edited by Buzsaw, : as showin in context

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2010 8:34 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2010 9:38 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2032
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 59 of 248 (598271)
12-29-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
12-29-2010 9:31 PM


Re: Which Life Priory Most Probable?
There comes a time when the math and reality become incompatible beyond imagination

Please show where the math is wrong, show your work. Really Buz if you, who's science education is at best at high school level from several decades ago, can declare that modern science is wrong then it should be trivial for you to do the math to show it.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2010 9:31 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2010 10:18 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 248 (598275)
12-29-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Theodoric
12-29-2010 6:25 PM


Cosmological evolution
Can you explain what evolution has to do with cosmology?

At least a couple of members are objecting to the use of the terms "evolution" and/or "evolutionist" outside of biological considerations. I feel this objection is without merit.

Certainly, dragging cosmology into a biological evolution topic is wrong, but biology doesn't get exclusive use of the term evolution - "Cosmological evolution" is a valid subject, and those supporting the scientific perspective could be termed "cosmological evolutionists" or the shorter "evolutionist".

I'm sure there's a good existing topic about this question, but I couldn't track it down. If someone wishes to pursue the mater, they should propose a new topic.

NO REPLIES, AT THIS TOPIC, TO THIS MESSAGE.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 12-29-2010 6:25 PM Theodoric 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