Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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: Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia )
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 replied

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

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 320 of 389 (631621)
09-02-2011 3:23 AM


looking for information
I know IamJoseph is currently suspended but this is a question that I need to ask.
Does anyone have any idea where IamJoseph gets his information from?
I have been looking for definitions and usage of his common phrases hoping I might be able to make sense of his arguements. I felt there was a possibility that he may be actually making sense but I was not getting understanding his usage of english.
Most information posted can be fairly easily tracked. Of you take a few key words from someones post and punch it into google, you can often find a source. Maybe not the same source but usually something that has the same sort of info.
Many creationist claims can be tracked this way.
With IamJoseph, I cant find any sources.
After doing keyword searches for common IamJoseph phrases like -
"Genesis is a scientific premise".
This phrase exists in two places. His posts on this forum and another EvC forum (Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution | Sciforums) posted by IamJoseph where he has since been banned for "Repeated offenses: intellectual dishonesty, hate speech, trolling".
"universe's finite factor"
This phrase appears in 3 places. His posts on this forum. several posts on the previously mentions sciforum where he has been banned and an unregulated open discussion forum called frostcloud (http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13079&pa...) in a message posted by IamJoseph. He is still active there but it is uncontrolled and unrestricted and you could post anything you want.
"indivisable and irreducible entity" I also tried with the correct spelling
There are some mentions of this phrase but on pages not related to cosmology or the Big Bang. There are other mentions of forums posted by IamJoseph. This page is one of them. Frost cloud is another, where a physicist is trying to explain why he is wrong about his views on singularities.
"Evolution was introduced in Genesis"
Agian, no real sources. Just posts by IamJoseph. Over here at Liberty News Forum (Page not found – Liberty News Forum), same old rants, different people telling him he has no idea what he is talking about. Also here at Chabad.org (Just a moment...), where he attempts to correct the Rabbi who wrote the article in a reply titled 'Evolution was introduced in Genesis.'. And another forum filled with his rantings. He has been banned from this site for multiple breaches of their code of conduct, Innapropriate posting: Nationalism and the belittlement of religious groups; derogatory remarks to religious, national or ethnic groups and members, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda. (worldhistoria.com - worldhistoria Resources and Information.)
"the Hebrew bible is the first alphabetical book"
Again, no credible sources. Just his rantings on this forum and over at the Science, philosphy chat forums, where he has also been banned. (http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=1...). And also here on a history site where he has been indefinitely suspended for religious preaching (Syrian-Palestinians | Page 4 | History Forum).
"The universe works via magestic laws"
I found he has his own youtube page because this phrase is on one of his comments (rants) His handle is Elvischallenge but all of the comments are the same. (https://www.youtube.com/user/ELVISCHALLENGE#p/f), also on frost where he actually defined what he means by majestic laws : A law is majestic when it transcends the barriers of religions and beliefs.
I searched for "there is no one in the universe" and the word "duality"
He has a blog. It is called : There is no one in the universe. The only post is "There is no "one" in the universe". he has no subscribers. (THERE IS NO "ONE" IN THE UNIVERSE.: November 2010).
Most of the phrases I searched for appeared multiple times in the same bunch of sites. I performed a fair few other phrase searches using quotes commonly used by IamJoseph. I came up with nothing. I was hoping that, as he wont supply his sources, maybe I could find them and this would help our debates.
What I found is that the only one saying these things is IamJoseph.
The only other possability is that he uses books. Maybe some of these phrases are just outdated and only appear in older books and have not migrated onto the internet.
Can anyone help me out? Anyone know of any uses of the common phrases IamJoseph anywhere other than his posts?
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Larni, posted 09-02-2011 4:12 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 324 by Panda, posted 09-02-2011 6:04 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 325 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 6:32 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 329 by Percy, posted 09-02-2011 7:59 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 332 of 389 (631651)
09-02-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 6:32 AM


Re: looking for information
Hello AM,
Well, not at all. He makes a good point about singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form and that point is common to many a thinker, Albert Einstein included.
His way of expression is different from any one else not the content of his idea.
Well, not at all.
Which part of my post does this refer to?
He makes a good point about singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form
He believes that the Big Bang occured. He does not think that singularities are mathematical fancy or not possible. He believes that the Big Bang occured. He believes that God was the force that started the Big Bang. He believes that the Big Bang is what is described in the Genesis creation narrative. He continues to tell everyone how scientifically accurate Genesis is because he belives that it fits with the Big Bang Theory. He believes that the phrase 'let there be light' is the first explosion from the singularity. He believes that God started it off by interacting with the singularity in some way and starting the Big Bang. Here are some quotes (sorry that some of it sounds like rambling bullshit but that is pretty common in IMJ's posts) -
That starts at a later point than I referred to. I referred to the expansion/bang of a singular first entity. Here, one cannot say 'energy build-up' [fusion] was a factor, as this would contradict the BB's initiation as a first point. IMHO, it must be a program which allows the expansion and thereby subsequent fusion: pineapples do not perform the same feat because they are embedded with a different program. All of science rests on this premise.
That is from Message 110
One point of knowledge is that the universe could not have been initiated with a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity: it takes two to tango applies. This premise is from Genesis
This is also from Message 110. The 'two to tango' he is babbling about is the singularity and God
The universe could not have emerged with a singular, irreducible, indivisible entity. here had to be more than one entity, and each compinent had to be embedded with a program directive. Now replace the term 'SAID' as 'embedded with a program directive'?
from Message 115
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!
from Message 304
His point is that the start of the universe, from the singularity, needed God to begin. The Big Bang was started by God.
That kind of deflates your post.
singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form and that point is common to many a thinker, Albert Einstein included.
common to many a thinker apart from the physicists who know what they are talking about. The physicists who are currently researching singularities. Can you supply the source that shows Einstein saying he thought that singularities were pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form?
You make it sound live every average Joe has an opinion on singularities. Like you continually hear people on the bus at at the coffe shop talking about how ridiculous the idea of singularities are. How many people do you think actually understand the theories enough to actually have a valid opinion? Do you think IamJoseph is coherent enough to value his opinion? Do you really belive, from reading his posts, that he knows enough about singularities to make any good points about them?
To hammer my point home, check this out from Message 304
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?.
Just take a look at his reply. He first agrees with the part about the singularity being acted upon by god to start the Big Bang. Then he says they dont exist. And he says they dont exist in this universe even though the singularity we are talking about is not in this universe. It created this universe.
This is the guy you think has a good point regarding singularities.
I would suggest Stephen Hawking myself. But you get your education from whoever you feel is best. (Or whoever best supports you particular beliefs regardless of how stupid or wrong they seem)
His way of expression is different from any one else not the content of his idea.
I would say different is an understatement. I would suggest he is intentionally and willfully ignorant, incomprehensible and a raving fool.
You think his content is not different. Find me another source that supports his idea that the Big Bang as described by current scientific theory, matches the description of Genesis in the Old Testament exactly and that God started it all off. Good luck.
I was hoping that he was just using old books with old terminology. Some of my dads old reference books have old terms not really used anymore. It was a stab in the dark but I had to give it a shot.
I believe that no other sources that even resembles any of his ravings exists because he is some random old guy, sitting in his basement (probably naked) screaming at his computer as he types whatever crazy shit that comes into his head.

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 325 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 6:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 362 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 1:09 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 334 of 389 (631653)
09-02-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Percy
09-02-2011 7:59 AM


Re: looking for information
Hey Percy,
It probably does not help that I am currently studying at university and help out as a tutor.
I am surrounded by people explaining things and am teaching people myself.
When you cant explain something so simple to someone, then it reflects badly on the teacher. Not the student.
I dont get a lot of exposure to people who cannot or will not learn.
I suppose I will just give up on IamJoseph. I will wait for one more reponse before giving up on Dawn Bertot as well. I set something out so simply that I think he may get it.
Here hoping.

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 329 by Percy, posted 09-02-2011 7:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 1:36 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 355 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 8:58 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 356 of 389 (631861)
09-03-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Dawn Bertot
09-03-2011 8:58 PM


Re: looking for information
Dawn Bertot,
Of course giving up and not responding will also allow you to avoid answering my questions that I have been asking you correct.
I am not online 24 hours a day. This message where you are accusing me of avoiding answering your questions was sent less than 1 hour after you replied to my last message. It is quire likely that I was doing one of several things. The three most likely would be sleeping, studying or working. At the time you sent that message, I may have actually been in a plane flying home.
Sorry I am too busy to try to correct your mistakes as quickly as you make them.
I think the closest youve come is to say,
"I see what you are saying". Surely you can do better than that, correct?
Nice quote mine. You even put a full stop on the end to make it look like that was the full sentence.
Here is the full sentence -
my comment - "I can see what you are saying. I can also see the fucking huge blindingly obvious error you are making."
I did do better than that. I supplied a range of questions to try to illustrate your basic error. Answering all of the questions in your post would be pointless because they are all based on the exact same error. I would have had to provide the exact same comment for each on of your questions.
You dont understand the difference between respond and communicate.
It would seem a bit silly to cut and paste this same comment after each one of your questions. This is the error you are making from the start. This needs to be dealt with before we can get anywhere.
I will respond to your message now as I have only just come online to read it.
for others who have no idea what we are talking about - Message 306

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 355 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 10:29 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 377 of 389 (632628)
09-09-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Portillo
09-08-2011 10:25 PM


Re: ad populum
Theres a reason creationists and intelligent designers arent peer-reviewed. Its called philosophical naturalism.
Anyone can submit their research for peer review.
I googled "how do i submit my scientific research for peer review"
And found information on how to submit to a variety of different journals.
I had a look at a few and none of them had any restrictions on what you could submit.
I also found this question and answer that I thought was good enough to include -
quote:
Question -Where do I publish my Creation Science research paper? How do I get National Science Foundation grant to study?
Where do I publish my Creation Science research paper for peer review?
And how do I apply for grant money from National Science Foundation to study creation science?
There were two answers.
Answer one - The Round File Publishing Company is where I would start.
Answer two - One does not publish a paper for peer review. One submits a paper to peer review. Papers which appear in peer reviewed journals must undergo the peer review process BEFORE being published. After that, everything you get is feedback and critical analysis of your peer-reviewed, published work.
As that's the case, I would imagine you could submit your paper to the peer review process by sending it to any scientific journal you wish, though you are more likely to receive a response other than "this is not our field of publication" if you target journals that specifically deal with the areas your study deals with (for instance, if you are discussing how geology relates to creationism, you would not want to submit your paper to the journal Evolution).
However, unless your science is flawless, you should expect your paper to soundly fail the peer-review process, and be ready for some very scathing critiques of your work. Scientists tend to be very attached to the facts and they spend a great deal of time accumulating their knowledge. As a result, they tend not to take kindly to people they think are frauds.
And how do you apply for grant money from the National Science Foundation to study creation science?
Personally, I don't think you should bother because there's slightly less chance of the NSF awarding a grant to a creation scientist than there is of the Sun turning into a bran muffin next Wednesday.
(Source : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2009121719234...)

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 373 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 10:25 PM Portillo 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