|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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?.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 258 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
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 8Rei 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/ Yahoo http://www.antidogma.ru/ http://www.eugenesittampalam.com/ (see the link for anti-gravity at BeardMuseum.com is for sale | HugeDomains) (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:Kaz group - The MITRE Corporation 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Hi IamJoseph,
Please stop participating in this thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hopefully that is your last post in this thread. If you post again I will suspend you for one week.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024