Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 169 of 414 (94507)
03-24-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Navy10E
03-24-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Evidential Support
You'll be the first person in history to provide the evidence for a global flood then. Congratulations.
Because all the educated/working geologists in the world (excepting 2 or 3 paid liars) disagree.
Glad your geology knowledge is better than theirs.... Oh - you don't have that knowledge ... but I thought you said you knew....oh - it's faith based knowledge - Ahh now I understand - a nut.
Why is it that of the say 100,000+ geologists on this planet you can probably find less than 100 who believe this global flood - and of those 95% are employed by Creationst groups like ICR/AIG where they are paid to hold the said opinion lest lose their job.
So the rest (of all faiths) are in a denial or conspiracy. riiiiight!
Tell me why do oil and mineral companies (not exactly known for anything but the bottom dollar) employ geologists who employ the standard principles and interpretations of geology and DON'T use the Creationist nonsense. Of course - who but the deluded do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Navy10E, posted 03-24-2004 3:38 PM Navy10E has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 184 of 414 (110532)
05-25-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:14 PM


Ah....
the old 'if you weren't there how can you know argument'.
*yawn*
Do you believe all criminals convicted via circumstantial evidence should be released from prison immediately?
After all - we weren't there to see them do the crime.
Do you believe all history texts describing events from more than say 100 years ago be destroyed.
After all we weren't there.
Should the Bible be treated purely as a work of fiction?
After all we weren't there.
Are you really so naive as to believe that the only way experiment and progress can be made is for you to be present?
If you find a piece of volcanic glass you don't need to be at the eruption to know the bugger was previously really bloody hot and came out of a volcano!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:14 PM jacketsfan4life has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:37 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 186 of 414 (110536)
05-25-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jacketsfan4life
05-25-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Ah....
I think we don't really need to prove our existence. I'm here - I exist. - LOL
There is ample evidence of what the conditions on the Earth were like long ago.
What this has to do with evolution per se I don't know.
I think what you are really thinking about is abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jacketsfan4life, posted 05-25-2004 11:37 PM jacketsfan4life has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 192 of 414 (137213)
08-26-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


This one is going to be fun
and going to take a while too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 9:43 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 194 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2004 9:45 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 195 of 414 (137220)
08-26-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


Part I.
Lets start on this first:
MORE PROBLEMS FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION
1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.
Not true. Metallicities vary from approx. -4.4 to +0.5 on a logarithmic scale with the Sun being 0.0. That is a factor of 100,000 in metal content. The "older" stars on the whole average around -1.5 compared to the solar value which is a factor of 40 less. This is well correlated with kinematics i.e. halo population versus thin disk populations in the Galaxy.
You also are skipping over the fact that heavy element production is not a constant process. The two main divisions are the elements formed by the s process (s=slow) and the r process (r=rapid). These are formed in different stars for the most part. s process in AGB stars and r process in core collapse supernovae.
2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
This is again a gross simplification. Interstellar means within the galaxy by the way. This gas is well mixed with earlier stellar generations and is iften as metal rich as stars. I think you meant intergalactic gas which by the way can still be polluted from supernovae ejecta.
3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.
No this is just a misstatement of the Big Bang. Read a book because I am not typing a six page post on this topic alone.
4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outwardleaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of spacewith an expanding center containing nothing.
See above. Whatever version of the Big Bang you are reading from you need to get a new source or parse the one you have better. What centre? What edge?
5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.
Stars are expected to be the same, excepting possibly at redshifts 7-15 which we have no observations of. galaxies however do exhibit morphological variation that was predicted in the heirarchical bottom up scenarios.
6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum existand in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.
This one is pathetic and has been explained to Creationists many times. It also shows a misunderstanding of high school physics. Why do you think ang. mom. conservation means things cannot rotate. It just means the total ang. momentum in a system is constant. Many interactions exhibit angular momentum transfer. By your version of physics a ball could never start spinning. Do you know what a torque is?
7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.
What happens if your collapsing gas cloud is ever so slightly peturbed very early on. This will manifest as a torque which gives it a slight rotation. Then as in the ice skater analogy as it contracts the angular velocity increases, voila, rotation. Also magnetic fields interacting with the collapssing gas can generate the torque. So can internal viscosity. Haven't you ever heard of viscous torques?
8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.
Rubbish, see above. This is much too complex to get into here but the spin down of stars is mass dependent and involves details of the stellar wind/magnetic fields, the structure of the star i.e. the depth of the convection zone etc etc. Age plays a factor (Skumanich law) but for instance massive stars lack a magnetised wind and so don't lose ang. momentum as efficiently. Small mass stars are fully convective and pin down as solid bodies thus they draw of a larger resevoir of angular momentum. See it's complex and your simplistic picture is hogwash.
9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.
I am a theorist and can explain this. See above. This is stupid stuff you typed.
10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.
Huh? this really doesn;t make any sense. What stars? If you mean the runaways like Mu Columbae then it and several others left Orion region a few million years ago almost undoubtedly when a companion went supernova. Otherwise i haven't a clue what you mean here.
11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction, but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)
Just so wrong it's sad. read a book. Your statement of the moving thing is just plain wrong.
12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.
No this is definitely not true. In fact a closed universe cannot rotate anyway. plus there is no evidence for this. this is a bullshit statement.
13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems, in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.
No No No No No. you haven't a cluw what you are talking about. You just got this list from a goofy website like Walt Brown's I bet. Structure formation in the early universe has NOTHING to do with stars/planets being present now.
Read some good books and lay off the drugs and/or Creationist lie sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 10:15 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 196 of 414 (137225)
08-26-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


Part II.
THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS
The theoryGradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.
This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.
I will give you $1000 if you can show me a text book that say this. it's just not a statement of any theory I know. This also has NOTHING to do with stellar evolutionary theory, absolutely nothing.
1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By "gas," we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.
Agreed. But so what. Congrats though you actually stated a fact, I'm proud of ya.
2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space."In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.
My God, where did you dig this up from. The solution of this was a prediction of Fred Hoyle back in the early 1950's and experimentally verified after. There is a resonance of Carbon that allows reactions to proceed past the gap.
By the way as for the clumping. GRAVITY. Gravity is bar far the weakest force BUT when you have huge amounts of material it overcomes the others. Do the basic math, this is easy to demonstrate. Look up isothermal spheres and read.
MORE FACTS
WHICH BURY THE THEORY
Methinks thou doth jest too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 198 of 414 (137228)
08-26-2004 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


Part III.
THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES
1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.
It wasn't an explosion. You are missing a big point. The expansion really only manifests itself on large scales. On small scales the expansion has little effect as gravitational potential wells dominate spacetime and so all the little Schwarzchild metrics are around and not a global Robertson Walker solution to GR. Thus this farther apart nonsense does NOT apply to atomic sizes, or even solar system sizes for that matter.
2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.
Gravity would. You are really not getting basic physics. Stop now and go learn.
3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
GRAVITY GRAVITY GRAVITY my dear chap. It's a force remember. Newton's 1st and 2nd Laws. remember them, if not go learn them.
4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.
Why do you think the early universe was some near vacuum? Again GRAVITY GRAVITY GRAVITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.
See above. this is pure BS.
6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.
THEY ARE NOT THAT RARIFIED. GRAVITY + EM FORCES + WEAK AND STRONG NUCLEAR. It wasn't a near vacuum.
We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.
Since you don't understand physical laws how can you say this. You are also confusing different eras.
Early Universe - it's all a soup of particles conitnuously interacting.
Later Universe - cloud collapse via GRAVITY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 199 of 414 (137229)
08-26-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by suaverider
08-26-2004 10:15 PM


I misspelled because my laptop keyboard sucks.
It was not an explosion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not angry, more amused than anything.
Occasionally I have to say too complicated because I am not typing out a multipage response where I would have to start with really basic physics and move up. that would take days whereas there are intro books you can get on this stuff + websites.
You really haven't even got the high school physics down so how am I supposed to in a paragraph explain general relativistic Big Bang solutions to you + baryonogenesis and nucleosynthesis + astrophysical magnetohydrodynamics + stellar evolution + etc etc.
Your post addressed topics that would cover 6 or 7 300 page text books to cover adequately.
I could give you a list of books but it seems you are coming from a lower level than that.
What is your background and/or age?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 10:15 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 10:42 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 200 of 414 (137235)
08-26-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by suaverider
08-26-2004 8:21 PM


Part IV
1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as a black hole is. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
It wasn't packed. It didn't explode.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
Who said nothingness. It wasn't pushed or packed. That implies an external spacetime present.
3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
Actually a vacuum has an energy density. Measured in the Casimir effect where the boundary conditions of the vacuum are changed in a topological sense.
No one says nothingness became dense.
Do you see why I am having problems relating everything you need in these posts. You are coming from a background of no understanding. that is not an insult but a statement of fact.
You are in posession of a CARTOON version of the Big Bang that is not present in any sciene book. I'm sorry but you got a fake version that is silly.
4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms! No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!
Again it was not an explosion. You are thinking in an everyday sense when you use words like ignition. It's not a bloody firework!
And I sure don't have time to give a quantum mechanics or heaven forbid a M-theory lecture.
Thats not a cop out, I have a life to live and I would like to live it and not be one here for 25 yeas.
5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.
This is assuming a prior spacetime. Google inflatons, quintessence, inflationary cosmology etc etc etc.
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Your word nothingness not mine. Google what i said earlier.
7 — The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
Is this an appeal from difficulty? Big Bang has NOTHING to do with STAR and PLANET formation. This is silly and a common Creationist piece of crap.
Show me a scientist who says that.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
So. It only needs to have occurred once. this is a resort to those stupid probabilty arguments Creationists use that are useless since you don't know the a priori parameter space to make them.
8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!
Well it didn't explode so i guess that model sucks. Thats an out of context quote if I ever saw one. Get me the whole quote.
9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matterif the Big Bang was true.
Wow you icked an interesting one. You misstate the problem for models but it is true that the imbalance is not well understood. We know CP violating reactions but not the ones that occurred in the Big Bang.
"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.
This is not a true statement of antimatter. See above comment too.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.
Do you how old these quotes are?
10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.
Not if you have a CP violating reaction that generates an asymmetry. Duh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 8:21 PM suaverider has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by 1.61803, posted 08-26-2004 10:44 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 203 of 414 (137240)
08-26-2004 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by suaverider
08-26-2004 10:42 PM


Did you read...
how many times I typed it ws not an explosion.
I was asking to ascertain your age and /or education level in the sciences because forgetting about the Big Bang when you post the nonsense about angular momentum or collapsing gas then it is obvious you don't know the basics of physics. If you think that is an insult then you are in for a rude awakening in the real world in any field.
The question about coming from nonexistence is really a philosophical one and not really a scientific one.
Do you know why the Big Bang Theory came into being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 10:42 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:03 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 205 of 414 (137247)
08-26-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by suaverider
08-26-2004 11:03 PM


Ok you're not interested in learning...
that much is obvious with statements like 'you know'. If 'you know' how come you don't even know basic high school senior physics like angular momentum conservation?
I would think someone 'who knows' would know that.
The philosophy comment was addressing the common question where did the Big Bang come from? Well that is not a question physics at this time (and maybe ever) can answer.
But physics can ask and answer questions about what happens after something that Genesis does a piss poor job of doing.
By the way you have not answered 2 things I asked:
Do you know why the Big bang theory came about?
What is your background, especially with your 'I know' arrogance?
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 08-26-2004 10:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:03 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:32 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 207 of 414 (137253)
08-26-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by suaverider
08-26-2004 11:32 PM


Re: Ok you're not interested in learning...
Could you use the quote facility. Place what you want to quote between [ qs ] and [ /qs ] without the spaces in the brackets.
Why do you think you understand this stuff when you do make serious errors in the basics? How is this rude to point this out? If I said Sammy Sosa was a great basketball player it would not be rude for you to point out that he is a baseball player and hence I don't know baseball very well.
Do you know the origin of the Big Bang Theory or are you going to dodge this question again?
I was asking for your background in the sense of age and/or science background not your name and address. Geez!
I said read a book (or 7) because how can someone give you detailed responses to the several dozen comments you made. I'd be typing several thousand words over the next two days, I don't think that is likely to happen.
Again, do you know why the Big bang theory came about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:32 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:59 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 208 of 414 (137254)
08-26-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by suaverider
08-26-2004 11:32 PM


i just saw your profile..
it lists your homepage as drdino Kent Hovind. Well since I assume you are not him why don't you go to answers in genesis website and see what they say about Dr Dino. And they are Creationists and basically call him a liar or deluded or both.
That website should have a goverment mental health warning and be off limits to those under 18.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:32 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by suaverider, posted 08-27-2004 12:03 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 211 of 414 (137258)
08-27-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by suaverider
08-26-2004 11:59 PM


Oh boy this is hard work...
I take it you are pretty young, my guess is about 15 or 16. Didn't you see I told you how to use the quote facility so it is easier to read.
How is this rude to point this out? If I said Sammy Sosa was a great basketball player it would not be rude for you to point out that he is a baseball player and hence I don't know baseball very well.
True but it would be rude to say Sammy sosa needs to read some books on hitting baseball's Because I think he isn't very educated in doing this. (opinion)
But it is not rude to say you need to read a physics/astronomy book because it is obvious you do.
Do you know the origin of the Big Bang Theory or are you going to dodge this question again?
My point is there was no origin to the big bang. How can I dodge stating the origin of something that didn't happen?
This is why I think you are young and not used to debating via the internet. Did you read what I asked. I asked do you know the origin of the Big Bang Theory, not the origin of the Big Bang, but why the theory was developed. Do you see what I am asking now? Why did scientists develope the theory?
I was asking for your background in the sense of age and/or science background not your name and address. Geez!
I don't see how that is important what does it matter will that knowledge help you in proving the points you are trying to make? I am more comfortable with us staying strangers. (you can call me suave though)
OK are you just being difficult? I was originally trying to help you so i could point you to the right level of material to read. How does your telling me your science education level mean anything accept in this context. Your avoidance speaks volumes. You are probably a high school kid with zero science knowledge.
You couldn't show me how your theory even started if a plain can't get off the ground it cant fly same as your theory. Wake up before its to late. so lets address this point first not the other 12.
I think you mean plane. Again I am trying to get there but I need to know if you realise why the BB Theory was developed. I want you to understand how science works but that is going to take some work it seems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by suaverider, posted 08-26-2004 11:59 PM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by suaverider, posted 08-27-2004 12:33 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 212 of 414 (137261)
08-27-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by suaverider
08-27-2004 12:03 AM


So you don't know evolution either.
Well I don't think its any crazier than thinking a rock came alive (that came from nothing)and from that non thinking hunk of crud here I am. Talking and everything
I'd be shocked you are not a high school kid. Statements like the above are just childish nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by suaverider, posted 08-27-2004 12:03 AM suaverider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by suaverider, posted 08-27-2004 12:37 AM Eta_Carinae 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