Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
Theodoric (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 165 of 181 (673824)
09-23-2012 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Not enough.
Claiming that redshift and CMBR are any evidence for the expanding big bunk is an exercise in irrelevance. The issue at hand is conceptual. The Universe is not an object therefore it can possibly neither expand nor cool. Only finite relative objects or systems can expand inside greater systems or objects and get cooler in comparison to other objects serving as a point of reference. The Universe is not capable of that by the very nature and definition of the idea. That is final and no trillions of peer-reviewing consenting quackademics can possibly do anything about it. The faith in the Big Bunk hypothesis is but an amusing example of collective delusion on the global scale. Nothing to do with any science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 1:55 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 12:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2012 9:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 168 of 181 (673856)
09-24-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by NoNukes
09-24-2012 9:08 AM


Re: Not enough.
I am yet to study LaViolette proposals in detail to say anything. There is a lot to digest. He covers a lot of issues- from quasars to Egyptian cosmology which reminds me of Rhawn Joseph, another anti-bigbangist and excellent panspermia theorist. As to redshift I prefer relativist explanations to the simple tired light one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2012 9:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 176 of 181 (674606)
09-30-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Paul Choa
09-29-2012 2:29 AM


Re: Big bang
Sorry, there could not be any evidence to support a patently absurd proposition. When conflicting evidence is considered for any two different explanations of a process, that may mean that either scenario is deemed to be logically possible. The Big Bang is not logically possible so no supporting evidence cited is relevant. For either that is an event whereby something is created from nothing which is a trick impossible to accomplish even for God, or something is always fully present and in that case that is an event of no greater universal significance than my next fart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Paul Choa, posted 09-29-2012 2:29 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:05 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 178 of 181 (674608)
10-01-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Paul Choa
09-30-2012 2:31 AM


Re: Big bang
Energy is not a thing. It is a measure of the ability to move things. Things are moved, energy it takes is measured. All other things being equal, it is a measure of distance travelled, ie, a measure of what it takes to move a unit of stuff over a unit of distance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Paul Choa, posted 09-30-2012 2:31 AM Paul Choa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2012 12:49 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 179 of 181 (674609)
10-01-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
10-01-2012 12:05 AM


Re: Big bang
That is not what they teach. If time zero is not the case then what is the figure of 13.7 billions of years they are quoting as the age of the Universe? No universal time zero means time is relative and beginning of time is arbitrarily assumed when any one starts measuring some motions. They must come out of the closet and state explicitly that universally any time is as good as any other and that the Universe has no measurable age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:05 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 10-01-2012 12:45 AM Alfred Maddenstein 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