Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and the visible past.
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 89 (582610)
09-22-2010 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by cavediver
09-22-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Too much information, slow down

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 10:33 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 89 (582613)
09-22-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by cavediver
09-22-2010 8:09 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
cavediver writes:
Buzsaw writes:
...you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer...
What does "ethernal" mean? What does "intelligent" mean? What is a "designer"?
How would I model such a thing?
Somewhat as your science alleges "models of the Universe where there is no concept of 'before' the Big Bang" ........no outside of for expansion and no time in which to have originated.

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 26 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 8:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 11:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 33 of 89 (582619)
09-22-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Larni
09-22-2010 8:40 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Apart from a 'just so' story for why there is anything at all, what models could derive from 'goddidit'?
Larni writes:
The whole point is to understand 'how'. Even if a god did poof it out of nothing scientists would still want to know how (I know I would).
Yah sure, Larni, like IDist eternal universe science proponents would like to know and understand the appearance that the BB poofed from nothing. Whether or not we all acknowledge the other's interpretation of observed phenomena, there is supportive evidence for both arguments.
Larni writes:
But either way you get infinite regression: where did the creator come from? Which in turn regressess to 'it created it's self', and if something can create itself somthing does not need a creator.
Lol. Nothing eternal, by definition, ever created itself. That is at least equally scientific and possible as the universe having no before, no time or space in which to have happened, no outside of in which to expand and no time in which it could have happened.
Larni writes:
And last time I looked this was a science thread. Superstitions from the bronze age are hardly appropriate.
LoL. The concept of higher intelligent entities in the universe is from all cultures for all of human history relative to all levels of human cultural intelligence, including todays ID scientists.

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 28 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 8:40 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 09-22-2010 11:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 12:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 34 of 89 (582621)
09-22-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Huntard
09-22-2010 8:08 AM


Re: Hunter's Randed Yada
Hunter writes:
As should the purple pooping hippo with three horns on its head model. If you'll help me with that one, I'll help you with yours. Ok?
Posting something of some significance in response would be the best way for you to help anyone, Hunter. This is nothing but ranted yada.

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 25 by Huntard, posted 09-22-2010 8:08 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 09-22-2010 12:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 35 of 89 (582622)
09-22-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 11:25 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Buz writes:
Yah sure, Larni, like IDist eternal universe science proponents would like to know and understand the appearance that the BB poofed from nothing.
The difference Buz is that there are ongoing scientific experiments and predictions that are testing the various Scientific theories.
What experiments and predictions are being attempted to support the alleged IDists eternal whatever?
Buz writes:
Whether or not we all acknowledge the other's interpretation of observed phenomena, there is supportive evidence for both arguments.
And you have been asked many times on many subjects to present the supportive evidence for your argument.
Here is yet another opportunity for you to try to actually support your argument.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 36 of 89 (582624)
09-22-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 11:01 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Somewhat as your science alleges "models of the Universe where there is no concept of 'before' the Big Bang" ........no outside of for expansion and no time in which to have originated.
Buz, there is nothing funny about you not comprehending this - all of that makes perfect sense in world of mathematical physics. That it makes no sense to you is irrelevant and of no consequence to anyone.
If you want to introduce some factor into the explanatory framework, you need to define your terms. Do so, or shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:01 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 12:04 AM cavediver has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 89 (582632)
09-22-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 11:25 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
there is supportive evidence for both arguments.
No, there is only supporting evidence for one 'side'.
Nothing eternal, by definition, ever created itself.
I'm good with that: no god!
The concept of higher intelligent entities in the universe is from all cultures for all of human history relative to all levels of human cultural intelligence, including todays ID scientists.
And is still a perfect example of primitive superstition sticking it's face and arse into a perfectly good scientific discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 12:26 AM Larni has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 38 of 89 (582641)
09-22-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 11:31 AM


Re: Hunter's Randed Yada
you missed the point, didn't you? Your woowoo "model" is just as good as any woowoo "model", I just proposed another one, that is just as scientific as yours.
Go on, prove me wrong, show the math, and I'll show you mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 39 of 89 (582946)
09-24-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
09-22-2010 11:58 AM


Re: Incomprehension
cavediver writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Somewhat as your science alleges "models of the Universe where there is no concept of 'before' the Big Bang" ........no outside of for expansion and no time in which to have originated.
Buz, there is nothing funny about you not comprehending this - all of that makes perfect sense in world of mathematical physics. That it makes no sense to you is irrelevant and of no consequence to anyone.
If you want to introduce some factor into the explanatory framework, you need to define your terms. Do so, or shut up.
You tell me to shut up, due to incomprehensiveness after this? Message 26
What does "ethernal" mean? What does "intelligent" mean? What is a "designer"?
You expect me to comprehend your model of no before, no outside of, no space and time, when I, science peon Buz must define for you, the EvC renouned Cavediver, terms like ethernal (I assume eternal), intelligent?
I maintain my Message 24
Here's what you are missing: Whereas you consider the above, science you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer model of the universe should also be considered a possible/viable/debatable science model.

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 36 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 11:58 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 12:21 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 47 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2010 4:11 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 40 of 89 (582947)
09-24-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 12:04 AM


Re: Incomprehension
Buzsaw writes:
I maintain my Message 24
Here's what you are missing: Whereas you consider the above, science you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer model of the universe should also be considered a possible/viable/debatable science model.
The terms "eternal", "intelligent" and "designer" are human concepts that are based on our experience in time-space. So, based on the standard BB model, "eternal" could only mean "since the big bang" and "intelligent designer" could only refer to some entity in the physical universe.
Presumably that is not what you intended. Thus cavediver was asking for an explanation of what you really did intend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 12:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 12:49 AM nwr has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 89 (582949)
09-24-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Larni
09-22-2010 12:29 PM


Re: Supportive Evidence
Larni writes:
Buzsaw writes:
there is supportive evidence for both arguments.
No, there is only supporting evidence for one 'side'.
Blindly asserted allegement, void of evidence.
Larni writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Nothing eternal, by definition, ever created itself.
I'm good with that: no god!
Say what? Nothing eternal need be created. Can you comprehend that?
Larni writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The concept of higher intelligent entities in the universe is from all cultures for all of human history relative to all levels of human cultural intelligence, including todays ID scientists.
And is still a perfect example of primitive superstition sticking it's face and arse into a perfectly good scientific discussion.
And just what of any substance in this one-er message has been intelligently contributed scientifically by Larni?

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 37 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 12:29 PM Larni has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 42 of 89 (582951)
09-24-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
09-24-2010 12:21 AM


Re: Comprehending terms.
nwr writes:
The terms "eternal", "intelligent" and "designer" are human concepts that are based on our experience in time-space. So, based on the standard BB model, "eternal" could only mean "since the big bang" and "intelligent designer" could only refer to some entity in the physical universe. Presumably that is not what you intended. Thus cavediver was asking for an explanation of what you really did intend.
I beg to differ. The BB does not define terms like eternal, designer and intelligent just because the BB is presumed to be temporal. Cavediver has the intelligence to determine the meaning of eternity, intelligence and designer relative to the context of the message to which he was responding.
Cavediver knew knew full well my intentions. The renouned scientist sports in making a fool out of the ole man. He should not fool with a fool until he's certain (abe: he's fooling with a) fool.
Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted, clarifying wording

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 40 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 12:21 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 12:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 43 of 89 (582952)
09-24-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 12:49 AM


Re: Comprehending terms.
Buzsaw writes:
I beg to differ. The BB does not define terms like eternal, designer and intelligent just because the BB is presumed to be temporal.
The standard model is that BB creates time. So "time" does not apply to anything other than what follows BB. I'm not sure what you intended by "the BB is presumed to be temporal" but that is not anything that I would presume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 12:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 1:45 AM nwr has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 89 (582963)
09-24-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by nwr
09-24-2010 12:58 AM


Re: Comprehending terms.
nwr writes:
The standard model is that BB creates time. So "time" does not apply to anything other than what follows BB. I'm not sure what you intended by "the BB is presumed to be temporal" but that is not anything that I would presume.
I understand that, but the terms which Cavediver called for the meaning of were eternal, intelligent and designer. Scientifically or otherwise, the BB does not define any of these, whether or not they are used in conjunction with the topic of BB or whether they are used in conjunction with another scientific topic.
My application of the term was relative to an eternal intelligent designer which allegedly exists in a non-temperal eternal universe. The context of my message left no question as to my intentions. Cavediver full well knew that. His condescending attitude towards lay folk sometimes un-necessarily muddies up constructive dialog.

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 43 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 12:58 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 09-24-2010 2:10 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 46 by frako, posted 09-24-2010 2:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2010 6:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 45 of 89 (582968)
09-24-2010 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
09-24-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Comprehending terms.
Buzsaw writes:
I understand that, but the terms which Cavediver called for the meaning of were eternal, intelligent and designer. Scientifically or otherwise, the BB does not define any of these, whether or not they are used in conjunction with the topic of BB or whether they are used in conjunction with another scientific topic.
The BB defines time. And the usual meaning of "eternal" depends on time. So, again, what does "eternal" mean such that it does not involve time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 1:45 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 09-24-2010 9:13 AM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024