Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 5:37 AM
41 online now:
caffeine, Tangle (2 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,612 Year: 3,649/19,786 Month: 644/1,087 Week: 13/221 Day: 13/36 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2500 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 301 of 389 (631436)
09-01-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 11:52 PM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
Iamjoseph,

I think i may have worked something out.

you are always babbling about a singular thing not being able to do anything to iteslf.

Some random gibberish like 'it takes two to tango'

and the majestic singular entity cannot touch itself.

and the two on one factor cannot apply.

that sort of bullshit.

suggesting that there had to be two things, the singularity and god to start the big bang thus supporting your own strange interpretation of scripture (i know, i know, you dont need to say it, there can be no other interpretation possible other than yours and it is 100% science proven fact even though you are not religious but your thinking is sciency logic yada yada yada)

Are you under the impression that the letters 'singular' in singularity actually mean a single inanimate object that could do nothing at all unless another force acted upon it?

Please tell me your entire argument is based on you seeing the word singularity and then saying a single thing cannot do something to itself.

A lima bean is inadmissable as a singularity. It has multi components including seeds and electrons.

The singularity referred to in the Big Bang Theory also had multiple components. It was composed of everything in the fucking universe.

Planning on stepping up to the plate with regards to my Great Debate challenge?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 11:52 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 2:36 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 302 of 389 (631437)
09-01-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Butterflytyrant
09-01-2011 2:31 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
quote:
Are you under the impression that the letters 'singular' in singularity actually mean a single inanimate object that could do nothing at all unless another force acted upon it?

Yes. And I got it by pondering this statement: 'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM'. It applies to everything.

Yes, it takes two to tango. Science depends on this factor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 2:31 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 2:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2500 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 303 of 389 (631441)
09-01-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 2:36 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
Can you explain how exactly you gained an undertsanding of singularities form this statement:

'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM'.

I cant see any cosmology at all.

It applies to everything.

Man and woman created he them (even when shouted) cannot apply to everything.

You are making no sense again.

Yes, it takes two to tango. Science depends on this factor.

Can I take this as your admission that your whole argument for God rests on the fact that you think that a singularity is a single inanimate object (singular item) that, in order to do anything, needs another force (your god conveniently) to 'tango'. And you have established this because the word singular is in the word singularity.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 2:36 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 3:07 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 304 of 389 (631442)
09-01-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Butterflytyrant
09-01-2011 2:55 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
quote:
Can you explain how exactly you gained an undertsanding of singularities form this statement:

'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM'.

I cant see any cosmology at all.


A duality is the minimum for any action; the man-woman gender duality is manifest, and it applies in turn to all things in the universe, including inanimate products. If the BBT states a single/singular/singularity 'expanded' - it is clearly incorrect: there was yet nowhere to expand to, nor any reason or cause to make this happen, nor was there energy to cause a bang, nor the law that allows it to go bang. Its a hedy subject and well beyond today's fresh faced scientists. Genesis is dealing with the most hedy subject of all. It is surprising that the BBT anomaly was not rejected on the basis of the equation provided in Genesis! Boggle-boggle!

quote:

It applies to everything.

Man and woman created he them (even when shouted) cannot apply to everything.

You are making no sense again.

Yes, it takes two to tango. Science depends on this factor.

Can I take this as your admission that your whole argument for God rests on the fact that you think that a singularity is a single inanimate object that, in order to do anything, needs another force (your god conveniently) to 'tango'. And you have established this because the word singular is in the word singularity.


Yes you can. There are no alternatives. In fact take this on board also: a singularity or a perfect 'ONE' cannot and does not exist in the universe; this is the meaning of the Hebrew equation, THE LORD IS ONE - a mode of phrasing Monotheism for all generation's understanding. Sublime literary genius, no?.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 2:55 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 3:19 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2500 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 305 of 389 (631445)
09-01-2011 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 3:07 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
IamJoseph,

this will pretty quickly prove you wrong.

your statement...

A duality is the minimum for any action; the man-woman gender duality is manifest, and it applies in turn to all things in the universe, including inanimate products.

My reply -

Asexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only, it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction )

my comment - Can I take this as your admission that your whole argument for God rests on the fact that you think that a singularity is a single inanimate object that, in order to do anything, needs another force (your god conveniently) to 'tango'. And you have established this because the word singular is in the word singularity.

your reply - Yes you can. There are no alternatives. In fact take this on board also: a singularity or a perfect 'ONE' cannot and does not exist in the universe; this is the meaning of the Hebrew equation, THE LORD IS ONE - a mode of phrasing Monotheism for all generation's understanding. Sublime literary genius, no?.

No. You have just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have just proven that your entire argument is based on your ignorance.

Go hug your favourite book for a while.

Then come back and take my Great Debate challenge.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 3:07 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 3:30 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 306 of 389 (631447)
09-01-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Butterflytyrant
09-01-2011 3:19 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
quote:
Asexual reproduction.

Two reasons why you are wrong in accepting this w/o good consideration:

1. You will find that there is a splitting factor [mutation] of the seed therein. This is also seen in single cell amebae - the cells split same as with other life forms.

2. Your own example says the single parent is in fact a conglomoration of billions of components and does not constitute a singularity: an indivisible and irriducible ONE.

The Chinese are still experimenting to produce another creature with split hooves and one with chews its cud, using cross-specie manipulations, todisprove something/anything in the book which introduced Creationism and Monotheism - as a means of upping Communism to its people. It has not worked yet.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 3:19 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Admin, posted 09-01-2011 6:17 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


(1)
Message 307 of 389 (631449)
09-01-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Pressie
08-31-2011 12:38 AM


Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything (by speaking a word according to the Christian variety of reality-deniers) as is less than 10 000 years ago. Nothing to do with science.

I haven't heard about anyone else lately who's rejected the Big Bang for scientific reasons. During earlier decades up to the mid eighties, some physicists, cosmologists, etc (people with relevant qualifications) did. Nowadays, with all the evidence they obtained (through Hubble, etc.), these scientific doubters seem to have all but disappeared (apart from a few creationists, who give religious reasons). These creationists make up less than 0.1% of the scientific community.

You say that only creationists reject the big bang. But the cosmologystatement.org which was signed by many non-creationist scientists have suggested that the big bang is not a good explanation of how the universe began.

The statement says:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."

In 1989 the editor for Nature magazine, John Maddox, wrote an editorial called "Down with the Big Bang". He wrote, "Creationists and those of similar persuasion, seeking support for their opinions, have ample justification in the doctrine of the big bang. That, they might say, is when and how the universe was created." He then declared the big bang "philosophically unacceptable".


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Pressie, posted 08-31-2011 12:38 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 6:05 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 321 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 4:06 AM Portillo has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3814
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 308 of 389 (631451)
09-01-2011 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 11:52 PM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
A lima bean is inadmissable as a singularity.

And what is admissible as a singularity? Do you even know what a "singularity" is, Joe, the kind of "singularity" we reference in the Big Bang and Black Holes? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 11:52 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1791 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 309 of 389 (631453)
09-01-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Portillo
09-01-2011 3:58 AM


Portillo writes:

You say that only creationists reject the big bang. But the cosmologystatement.org which was signed by many non-creationist scientists have suggested that the big bang is not a good explanation of how the universe began.

Demise of Big Bang: Cosmology Statement

and in particular:

Message 8

Rei writes:

Gotta love the quality of these links that these quality scientists give to their work:

http://education.vsnl.com/sankhyakarika/
http://www.kolbecenter.org/
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/
http://hometown.aol.com/wmitch8493/myhomepage/index.html
http://www.antidogma.ru/
http://www.eugenesittampalam.com/ (see the link for anti-gravity at http://www.beardmuseum.com/ses/AntiGravity.htm)
(etc - and these are just the people who *posted* their links!)

To some of these sorts of people, the Gaia Hypothesis would seem too mainstream. Lets look at some of their quality, applicable positions:

"Independent researcher" (lots and lots of these!)
"US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.)"
"Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka"
(etc)

The companies are *almost always* not applicable at all:
http://www.kaz-group.com/
http://www.mitre.org/
http://superconix.com/
(etc)

Of the names that are from universities, the vast majority are not from applicable fields:
Tom Walther: Senior programmer and systems analyst
Michael A. Duguay: Electrical engineering and data processing
Jonathan Chambers: Postgraduate psychology research student
(etc)

Several of them don't show up in faculty listings for their claimed universities. Several of them can't even be found on the net outside this list.

This list is a complete joke. Very few of these people are even in remotely related fields. Perhaps one in 40 of these people is in a position to accurately comment about the accuracy of the big bang.

In short, this list isn't worth the paper it's written on (for which it isn't written on any)


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Portillo, posted 09-01-2011 3:58 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-01-2011 9:15 AM Panda has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 310 of 389 (631459)
09-01-2011 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 3:30 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
Hi IamJoseph,

Please stop participating in this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 3:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 6:51 AM Admin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1746 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 311 of 389 (631469)
09-01-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Admin
09-01-2011 6:17 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
what baloney is this, asking me to do so when a flagrantly ignorant question is pointed at me. Better that this be dealt with:

quote:
And what is admissible as a singularity? Do you even know what a "singularity" is, Joe, the kind of "singularity" we reference in the Big Bang and Black Holes? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Yes I do know. There are 22 different singularities listed in most encyclopedia. I gave my version with sufficient qualification - irreducible and indivisible - as per the GUT. Deal with that!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Admin, posted 09-01-2011 6:17 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Admin, posted 09-01-2011 7:52 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 312 of 389 (631483)
09-01-2011 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by IamJoseph
09-01-2011 6:51 AM


Re: No Sense Whatsoever!
Hopefully that is your last post in this thread. If you post again I will suspend you for one week.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 09-01-2011 6:51 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 313 of 389 (631488)
09-01-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Panda
09-01-2011 6:05 AM


That was not the point of the post. The gist of it is that from an outsider vantage point the explanations to the ultimate nature of existence offered by the Big Bang Theory are vastly inferior next to what most competing alternatives are suggesting. The core tenets of the theory are patently absurd and in blatant contradiction to all the observations and predictions of each other. Yet since the theory is so eagerly re-patched and readjusted and is enjoying an overwhelming support and presently being the common myth of the whole mankind, such acceptance demonstrates the deep-seated need of humanity for the magical thinking whether such is direct or masquerading as science as is the case with the current cosmological ideas.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 6:05 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 9:35 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1791 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 314 of 389 (631491)
09-01-2011 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-01-2011 9:15 AM


One of your more coherant rants.
But I know it won't last so I CBA debating with you.

I'll put you into the same category as IamJoseph.
Hopefully you will continue to waste your time replying to my posts.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-01-2011 9:15 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-01-2011 10:05 AM Panda has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2045 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 315 of 389 (631495)
09-01-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Panda
09-01-2011 9:35 AM


That's because you've no argument either against the sceptical cosmology statement or my summary and paraphrasing of it. In the case of the original all you can do is to hint that those who made the statement lacked credentials to have any good opinion on the issue. That's an appeal to authority of those entitled to an opinion according to you.
In my case it is a vague appeal to a vague ideal of coherence in general to which as you insinuate my rants may not correspond.
These are all impotent tricks any dying ideology is always resorting to against the assaults of sceptical reason in an desperate attempt to prolong its sway indefinitely.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Panda, posted 09-01-2011 9:35 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 09-01-2011 4:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019