Scientists Theorize the Big Bang may not Have happened

[DragonStryk72]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

[Motown]

There are a lot of interesting ideas out there about this. I read one the other day talking about how our universe could have resulted from a puncture in another one and now our universe is just flowing from one end to the other. I'm not a physicist so I've got no idea if these scientists are loons or not but it is fun stuff to follow.

[Gunny]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

You mean the whole actual scientific theory that you can't create something from nothing refutes their theory of the Big Bang?

[revelarts]

from the article, At least they are getting to this admission.

...To conclude, it’s clear that we do not yet have a solid explanation regarding what happened during the Big Bang, or if it even happened at all. This new theory is combining general relativity with quantum mechanics, and at the end of the day these are all just theories.Not to mention the fact that theories regarding multiple dimensions, multiple universes and more have to be considered. When looking for the starting point of creation, our own universe might not even be the place to start. It might be hard given the fact that we cannot yet perceive other factors that have played a part in the make up of what we call reality. What is even harder is the fact that quantum physics is showing that the true nature and make up of the universe is not a physical material thing! We just don’t know yet, and there are still new findings in modern day physics that delve into non-materialistic science that many mainstream materialistic scientists have yet to grasp and acknowledge...



See, I can respect that. however i think they should take ONE more step. Especially if they are willing to accept UNSEEN and UNSEEABLE multiverses, and NON MATERIAL forces influencing the martial world.

They should allow God as a real option as well. this won't "stop science" it' just makes looking at purpose possible within the context of finding out HOW stuff works. Knowing that a new device was made for a purpose doesn't STOP the a curious researchers quest in finding out how it works and how it was made or trying to make something similar.

[Abbey Marie]

An interesting thought to consider is, how many teachers taught Big Bang as though it were fact?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So I saw an article today that I found very interesting. Basically, one of the core issues of the Big Bang Theory is the fact that physics tends to break down around it. I mean, where did the dark matter come from, what sets off the reaction, how is it still expanding, the questions go on and on.

The new theory is that the Universe has always exusted, with no beginning as we.would be able to.comprehend it.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

In ninth grade, at age 15, I wrote a term paper that refuted the big bang theory. It was so good that it alone got a 100 from that science teacher. And the science teacher actually told me it caused him to start to doubt the big bang theory of which he had been a staunch believer before!
I believe I posted a thread here before myself about big bang theory being refuted or else about it being wrong.
Too lazy to look for it.. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You mean the whole actual scientific theory that you can't create something from nothing refutes their theory of the Big Bang?

They had only two choices--either everything came from nothing or else everything always existed.
As I pointed out if everything always existed then how or why does decay ever exist?
Why or how could everything have been in a compact define space to ever go--big bang--and if that mass
of matter 100 to the trillion power of gravity at its center--no explosion of fissional material could blow it apart!
Not even light can escape from a black hole!
I wrote about all this at age 15-ninth grade science term paper, back in 1969.

My conclusion was it all came from a "nothing"(relative terminology) but that nothing was pure energy= God. -Tyr

[Gunny]

They had only two choices--either everything came from nothing or else everything always existed.
As I pointed out if everything always existed then how or why does decay ever exist?
Why or how could everything have been in a compact define space to ever go--big bang--and if that mass
of matter 100 to the trillion power of gravity at its center--no explosion of fissional material could blow it apart!
Not even light can escape from a black hole!
I wrote about all this at age 15-ninth grade science term paper, back in 1969.

My conclusion was it all came from a "nothing"(relative terminology) but that nothing was pure energy= God. -Tyr

I kind of got tired of having this argument a LONG time ago. Science reality and scientific theory are 2 different things. Science reality states you cannot create something from nothing. Yet, scientific "big bang" says you can. They can't even follow their own damned rules attempting to refute God.

Same the the "expanding universe" BS. How can something that is infinite expand? If you can't pinpoint the center and the end, how can you say it's expanding? These scientific "theorists" have done nothing but create their religion in an attempt to refute another.

[Gunny]

In ninth grade, at age 15, I wrote a term paper that refuted the big bang theory. It was so good that it alone got a 100 from that science teacher. And the science teacher actually told me it caused him to start to doubt the big bang theory of which he had been a staunch believer before!
I believe I posted a thread here before myself about big bang theory being refuted or else about it being wrong.
Too lazy to look for it.. --Tyr

You may have done okay in HS, but I've had this same argument over a dozen times on boards and the main problem is we have a generation of people like our Constitution-hating President that hate God. They believe BS they think refutes him while they really have nothing more of an argument than their own religion.

[DragonStryk72]

You may have done okay in HS, but I've had this same argument over a dozen times on boards and the main problem is we have a generation of people like our Constitution-hating President that hate God. They believe BS they think refutes him while they really have nothing more of an argument than their own religion.

I think it's more that since more than a generation has grown up with it, letting the theory go becomes harder. It becomes an ingrained belief, every bit as much as growing up going to Catholic school.

I always sort of had issues with it, cause the scientific explanation essentially required the absence of all we know of physics. That always felt like a red flag.

Previously on this board, I've pointed out the holes in Big Bang: so before there was time, space, or matter, at this one point of time, in an infinitely small space, was an infinitely small piece of matter that's never existed before or since.

I've never viewed the science vs. Faith thing as an either or kind of thing. Science, to me, is how we come to understand God's creation. New information, or science that contravenes the Bible just means that some long ago humans, however divinely inspired, were wrong on some facts. It's doesn't disprove God, or any such silliness, it's just new information on how His creation works.

[Gunny]

I think it's more that since more than a generation has grown up with it, letting the theory go becomes harder. It becomes an ingrained belief, every bit as much as growing up going to Catholic school.

I always sort of had issues with it, cause the scientific explanation essentially required the absence of all we know of physics. That always felt like a red flag.

Previously on this board, I've pointed out the holes in Big Bang: so before there was time, space, or matter, at this one point of time, in an infinitely small space, was an infinitely small piece of matter that's never existed before or since.

I've never viewed the science vs. Faith thing as an either or kind of thing. Science, to me, is how we come to understand God's creation. New information, or science that contravenes the Bible just means that some long ago humans, however divinely inspired, were wrong on some facts. It's doesn't disprove God, or any such silliness, it's just new information on how His creation works.

No argument here. I ain't into the theory of happenstance.

[DragonStryk72]

No argument here. I ain't into the theory of happenstance.

Now see, I could accept a theory of happenstance, if it didn't require the absolute breakdown of all natural laws. You wanna tell me you found a scientific explanation for the universe, GREAT! I'd love to hear it, but if the very next thing you tells me requires getting around all scientific laws, then we have a problem.

[Gunny]

Now see, I could accept a theory of happenstance, if it didn't require the absolute breakdown of all natural laws. You wanna tell me you found a scientific explanation for the universe, GREAT! I'd love to hear it, but if the very next thing you tells me requires getting around all scientific laws, then we have a problem.

I think we're on the same page here. I just take it a step further.

Scientific theory cannot refute Judeo Christian theory. Actual science - man defining what man understands is one thing. I understand actual science. It's when they start dreaming up crap.

[pete311]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

[Gunny]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

It's bullshit. Want to be all scientific? Tell me that law again about creating something from nothing? Get back to me when you figure it out. And not with some theory. The Holy Bible has as much basis in fact as scientific theory. Bring some FACTS.

[pete311]

It's bullshit. Want to be all scientific? Tell me that law again about creating something from nothing? Get back to me when you figure it out. And not with some theory. The Holy Bible has as much basis in fact as scientific theory. Bring some FACTS.

I don't think you comprehended my post, try again

[pete311]

Read this 3 part intro series on inflation
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/poor-mans-cmb-primer-part-0-orientation/

These two are also very good
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/balloon-analogy-good-bad-ugly/

[DragonStryk72]

Typical, people making their own astrophysical and cosmological conclusions with little to no astrophysical or cosmological education. The big bang is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. We have strong evidence and math that describes the universe to the first second. Before that, sure, it's mostly educated conjecture. By all means, put your God there. For now...

The theory is still based on a lot hand-waving, and don't even start on that "lots of science" line. Lots of science said that said that miasma cause infections, and it didn't stop cholera from proving them wrong. Even then, with proof, it took YEARS for them to admit the proof was true.

Lots of science said the maggots and flies were created by rotting meat, until someone proved once and for all that was crap.

Without a LOT of handwaving, the big bang doesn't really work.

[pete311]

Without a LOT of handwaving, the big bang doesn't really work.

I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking about.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't think you have a clue of what you are talking about.

Really? Okay, so here we go: Dark energy and dark matter were made up. Even astrophysists admit to this point. Why? Because Einstein's theory of relativity created a point by which we could theorize the beginning of the universe. The problem, came when it was realized that expansion is occuring at a vastly faster rate than Einstein's theory alower for. This is what led to the creation of dark energy and matter, to fill the gap.

This comes to a head with the fact that most points of academic review posit the theory of relativity to be correct, along with allowing for dark matter and energy. Now, posits are necessary to an extent, or we'd have to reprove gravity, and the existence of life every time we start anything. However, when theoretical physics get taken as posits, that presents a serious problem in the review stage.

This, btw, is why it is still the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, not laws.

[Drummond]

Two fairly simple points of my own to make ...

Firstly, those who want to be immovably wedded to the 'inviolable' principle that scientific fact and method cannot be questioned, might like to reflect on the fact that all of existence itself defies science.

Has the Universe always existed ? If so, then why does it have any need to change or evolve ?? What could possibly be the point, or function, of that change ? Yet, all observations show that it has, is, and will continue to.

Secondly, if something created the Universe, by sheer definition alone, a God MUST be responsible. Everything we see in the Universe positively screams 'DESIGN' .. physical laws themselves follow, and can be described by, logical process. And, what power to design then create the Universe could ever, possibly, FAIL to be definable as a God ? We have no way of referring to such a force, or intelligence, any other way.

With a God as designer, all things are possible. If the Universe did start, and via a Big Bang ... well, why couldn't a God have done that ? And for that matter, keep on doing it .. time and again ? How do we know that our Universe is the first one that's ever existed ?

Mankind's intelligence is limited, our ability to fully comprehend our very existence likewise limited. We may never get close to understanding what completely explains it ... though we may arrogantly believe otherwise.

[pete311]

This, btw, is why it is still the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, not laws.

There are misconceptions on what a scientific theory is
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

"As used in science (http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/naturescience.html), I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."

[pete311]

Two fairly simple points of my own to make ...

Firstly, those who want to be immovably wedded to the 'inviolable' principle that scientific fact and method cannot be questioned, might like to reflect on the fact that all of existence itself defies science.

Has the Universe always existed ? If so, then why does it have any need to change or evolve ?? What could possibly be the point, or function, of that change ? Yet, all observations show that it has, is, and will continue to.

Secondly, if something created the Universe, by sheer definition alone, a God MUST be responsible. Everything we see in the Universe positively screams 'DESIGN' .. physical laws themselves follow, and can be described by, logical process. And, what power to design then create the Universe could ever, possibly, FAIL to be definable as a God ? We have no way of referring to such a force, or intelligence, any other way.

With a God as designer, all things are possible. If the Universe did start, and via a Big Bang ... well, why couldn't a God have done that ? And for that matter, keep on doing it .. time and again ? How do we know that our Universe is the first one that's ever existed ?

Mankind's intelligence is limited, our ability to fully comprehend our very existence likewise limited. We may never get close to understanding what completely explains it ... though we may arrogantly believe otherwise.

Nothing really scientific here, but.... certainly this forum shows how limited human intelligence is. The universe screams design to you because you don't understand how anything works. When you don't understand for some reason people always give up and attribute it to a God. I have no problem with people people saying God started the big bang, but he certainly didn't design anything. Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

[Drummond]

Nothing really scientific here, but.... certainly this forum shows how limited human intelligence is. The universe screams design to you because you don't understand how anything works. When you don't understand for some reason people always give up and attribute it to a God. I have no problem with people people saying God started the big bang, but he certainly didn't design anything. Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

What a giveaway, eh ?

Pete, how can anything 'work' - much less be too complicated for me to understand its workings ! - unless it was designed to work ??

I take it you'll concede scientists, in trying to figure out the universe, have to apply their intelligence to the task ? That they calculate, logically, explanations for what they learn ? How could any of such a process even be applicable, much less WORK, unless they're unravelling the design itself ?

A scientist discovers the process by which our Sun produces energy. That process follows logical sequence, obeying in the process the laws by which this Universe operates. But ... HOW can any of that exist, how and why would it need any study of such a process, unless following design parameters ?

To suppose that all we know, down to logical process ITSELF, is a mere product of 'chance', or something 'random', makes no sense. Well -- does it ?

You say:


Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

Has it occurred to you that your statement is based on a massive preconception, UNTESTED ?

Latest theories say that only a small percentage of the total matter in the Universe is actually directly detectable to us ... that 'Dark Matter' makes up most of it. Now .. we can only deduce what's in the Universe from observation (after all, have we BEEN to the rest of the Universe, or, do we only look out at it with means limited by ourselves ... ?). What if this '99.9% nothing' only LOOKS LIKE 'nothing', because, get this, it's DARK ?? And what if what we cannot see enables what we CAN see, to exist in its present form ?

Could it be, Pete, that you are suffering misconceptions because of your inability to grasp the full extent of DESIGN involved ? H'mm ?

Think about it.

[pete311]

To suppose that all we know, down to logical process ITSELF, is a mere product of 'chance', or something 'random', makes no sense. Well -- does it ?


Latest theories say that only a small percentage of the total matter in the Universe is actually directly detectable to us ... that 'Dark Matter' makes up most of it.

It only makes no sense because you don't understand advanced cosmology and quantum dynamics. Nobel prize winners in physics do and I'm throwing in with them.

Dark matter is still mostly empty space. A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. But still, what is the point of creating a seriously enormous universe filled with a few burning gas balls and some dusty comets. Oh and then in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny spec of space make a faulty designed earth with a few super faulty cavemen. Yeah, that makes sense. Real intelligent designer there. You must understand how seriously seriously insignificant we are to the universe. An asteroid could come by wipe us out and the universe doesn't blink. Where is your God then?

[Gunny]

I don't think you comprehended my post, try again

I skimmed your post. Ain't a whole about you to understand. I responded to the thread title. You just got lucky it was you I quoted.

[Abbey Marie]

It only makes no sense because you don't understand advanced cosmology and quantum dynamics. Nobel prize winners in physics do and I'm throwing in with them.

Dark matter is still mostly empty space. A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. But still, what is the point of creating a seriously enormous universe filled with a few burning gas balls and some dusty comets. Oh and then in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny spec of space make a faulty designed earth with a few super faulty cavemen. Yeah, that makes sense. Real intelligent designer there. You must understand how seriously seriously insignificant we are to the universe. An asteroid could come by wipe us out and the universe doesn't blink. Where is your God then?


And those same Nobel prize winners and their successors have been known to change their minds about their theories. But you go ahead and throw in with them like they are omniscient.

[pete311]

And those same Nobel prize winners and their successors have been known to change their minds about their theories. But you go ahead and throw in with them like they are omniscient.

That is the beauty of science. It keeps getting better, corrected, refined. A dusty old book of poorly written fairy tales that explains nothing about the world does not.

[pete311]

I skimmed your post. Ain't a whole about you to understand. I responded to the thread title. You just got lucky it was you I quoted.

The big bang theory says nothing about the moment of creation. It's about the process of what happened instantly after. Furthermore you seem to love the "something from nothing" statement. Where do you get that from? Do you know what "nothing" is in science? There is no such thing. According to quantum dynamics even a perfect vacuum is not empty. So what makes you think there was "nothing"?

[Gunny]

The big bang theory says nothing about the moment of creation. It's about the process of what happened instantly after. Furthermore you seem to love the "something from nothing" statement. Where do you get that from? Do you know what "nothing" is in science? There is no such thing. According to quantum dynamics even a perfect vacuum is not empty. So what makes you think there was "nothing"?

:lame2::bsflag:Need to learn and understand what you're talking about before you start running your suck.

[pete311]

:lame2::bsflag:Need to learn and understand what you're talking about before you start running your suck.

Sorry you're wrong

[pete311]

This article explains both my points

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/quantum-foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

"While the Big Bang theory explains how the universe has expanded and cooled since it began, it is quite silent on what “pulled the trigger,” so to speak. We simply don’t know what started the process."

"If your mind isn’t blown, wait…it gets crazier still. Empty space—that is, space that contains nothing—no energy, no charge, no matter, nothing—is filled with a writhing, active population of virtual particles that physicists call “the quantum foam,” with bubbles appearing and popping in wild abandon. At the subatomic level, space is never truly empty."

[Gunny]

This article explains both my points

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/quantum-foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

"While the Big Bang theory explains how the universe has expanded and cooled since it began, it is quite silent on what “pulled the trigger,” so to speak. We simply don’t know what started the process."

"If your mind isn’t blown, wait…it gets crazier still. Empty space—that is, space that contains nothing—no energy, no charge, no matter, nothing—is filled with a writhing, active population of virtual particles that physicists call “the quantum foam,” with bubbles appearing and popping in wild abandon. At the subatomic level, space is never truly empty."

Nothing in scientific law explains the "Big Bang THEORY". The Big Bang Theory violates scientific law. All the talk and BS in the world doesn't change that one bit.

[pete311]

Nothing in scientific law explains the "Big Bang THEORY". The Big Bang Theory violates scientific law. All the talk and BS in the world doesn't change that one bit.

How do you come to this conclusion? It is very scientific.

[Gunny]

How do you come to this conclusion? It is very scientific.

Incorrect. Scientific fact is man explaining man. Scientific theory is arrogant man trying to explain away God with nothing more than myth. Big Bang theory -- creating something from nothing. Expanding universe -- how does something that is infinite expand?

You start with a paramecium and work your way up to all life forms until you reach man and you actually believe it "just happened"? Life is too perfect to be an accident and I get tired of listening to men who are so arrogant they would be God try to explain away the obvious. You don't want to be held accountable? Suit yourself. In the end, you will be.

[pete311]

Incorrect. Scientific fact is man explaining man. Scientific theory is arrogant man trying to explain away God with nothing more than myth. Big Bang theory -- creating something from nothing. Expanding universe -- how does something that is infinite expand?

You start with a paramecium and work your way up to all life forms until you reach man and you actually believe it "just happened"? Life is too perfect to be an accident and I get tired of listening to men who are so arrogant they would be God try to explain away the obvious. You don't want to be held accountable? Suit yourself. In the end, you will be.

First you need to understand what science theory is
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Secondly, I've already explained that there is no such thing as nothing and that the big bang doesn't attempt to explain what triggered it. Get that in your thick skull.

You think life is perfect? Next time I eat some bad mexican I'll show you my poo and you tell me if that is perfect. Next time your loved one gets cancer, tell me that is perfect. Next time you see a child beaten in domestic abuse, tell me that is perfect. The world and life is amazing, but far from perfect. You let your religion blind yourself from a true education and understanding about the world around you. You don't understand so you just give up and say it must be God. That is foolish. Many thing I don't understand, I just say, I don't understand it. There is no need to leap to God.

[pete311]

I also linked to this article which explains inflation a bit
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/

This is written at an undergrad level. If you can't understand it then you should give the PhDs more credit.

[Gunny]

First you need to understand what science theory is
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Secondly, I've already explained that there is no such thing as nothing and that the big bang doesn't attempt to explain what triggered it. Get that in your thick skull.

You think life is perfect? Next time I eat some bad mexican I'll show you my poo and you tell me if that is perfect. Next time your loved one gets cancer, tell me that is perfect. Next time you see a child beaten in domestic abuse, tell me that is perfect. The world and life is amazing, but far from perfect. You let your religion blind yourself from a true education and understanding about the world around you. You don't understand so you just give up and say it must be God. That is foolish. Many thing I don't understand, I just say, I don't understand it. There is no need to leap to God.

FIrst you need to understand I understand YOU, AND scientific "theory". You're full of sh*t. I'm every bit as educated if not more than you are. I understand the world around me just fine. You seem to be the one that can't get a grip on it with all your goofy theories.

[pete311]

FIrst you need to understand I understand YOU, AND scientific "theory". You're full of sh*t. I'm every bit as educated if not more than you are. I understand the world around me just fine. You seem to be the one that can't get a grip on it with all your goofy theories.

yeah goofy theories... you mean that ones that helped you build that computer you're using? or the goofy theories that put a man on the moon and landed a probe on a moving comet? The goof theories that make nuclear power possible and supersonic jets flying? yeah those goofy theories... what do they know....

[Gunny]

yeah goofy theories... you mean that ones that helped you build that computer you're using? or the goofy theories that put a man on the moon and landed a probe on a moving comet? The goof theories that make nuclear power possible and supersonic jets flying? yeah those goofy theories... what do they know....

A theory didn't build this computer. A Man did. It's a machine. Machines are man-made by men. God gave us the ability. He doesn't build them for us. And the knowledge and wisdom sure as Hell didn't come from any "theory". It came from experience and failure until success was achieved. Like iron swords that were brittle as Hell against bronze ones that can't stand up to steel.

I theorize if someone loaned me an Ironman suit I could end the war in the Middle East. Want to get back to reality?

[Gunny]

And this 5 month old baby thinks you're a dork. :laugh:

[Black Diamond]

And this 5 month old baby thinks you're a dork. :laugh:

Training the little one well, I see.

[pete311]

A theory didn't build this computer

Guess you've never heard of this pretty fundamental theory of electromagnetism. It's kinda important. I'm stunned how daft you're being.

[pete311]

Oh and the reason satellites work is exactly because of Einsteins theory of relativity.

[Gunny]

Training the little one well, I see.

She's cool beans. She'll know her General Orders by the time she's 2. :salute:

[pete311]

I would love you to tell me step by step how to build an electrical computer using no scientific theories. Once again I think you are confused at what a science theory is.

[Gunny]

Guess you've never heard of this pretty fundamental theory of electromagnetism. It's kinda important. I'm stunned how daft you're being.

Who's being daft? You mean because you can't stick to a topic and deflect all over the place? Let's see, AFTER I spent 21 years as a Marine I spent 15 as an electrician. Where you want to go with this one, junior? I know moare about eletricity than you got coming in the plug in your wall.

Which has WHAT to do with your theories?

[pete311]

Who's being daft? You mean because you can't stick to a topic and deflect all over the place? Let's see, AFTER I spent 21 years as a Marine I spent 15 as an electrician. Where you want to go with this one, junior? I know moare about eletricity than you got coming in the plug in your wall.

Which has WHAT to do with your theories?

Why do I need to spell this out for you. We need to understand the theories of electromagnetism in order to build computers. You claimed no theory has ever produced anything or something like that. If we didn't understand the theories of electromagnetism you computer would not work.

[Gunny]

Why do I need to spell this out for you. We need to understand the theories of electromagnetism in order to build computers. You claimed no theory has ever produced anything or something like that. If we didn't understand the theories of electromagnetism you computer would not work.

You aren't intelligent enough to spell anything out for me. I built my computer, dipstick. Jim built his. There are a few others on here that did the same. What I claimed is that YOUR theory violated scientific law. Get your shit straight, boy. You don't get to pick and choose. Unless you're a damned Democrat. Scientific theory is nothing but geeks trying to disprove God by violating their own laws.

Where you get into this electro-crap is beyond me.

[pete311]

You aren't intelligent enough to spell anything out for me. I built my computer, dipstick. Jim built his. There are a few others on here that did the same. What I claimed is that YOUR theory violated scientific law. Get your shit straight, boy. You don't get to pick and choose. Unless you're a damned Democrat. Scientific theory is nothing but geeks trying to disprove God by violating their own laws.

Where you get into this electro-crap is beyond me.

No you didn't build your computer, you just put the pieces together. I'm talking about the physics and mathematics behind microprocessors, LED screens, RAM. That is all designed using the theories that make up the foundation for electromagetism. That is scientific theory in action. Tell me what law does the big bang violate?

[Abbey Marie]

That is the beauty of science. It keeps getting better, corrected, refined. A dusty old book of poorly written fairy tales that explains nothing about the world does not.


Nice sidestep there. You should be honest and address the point that these theories you are willing to bet your eternal life on as being rock-solid true, change.

I would not choose to put faith in something so changeable, and neither should you. Would you build your house on shifting sands?

[Russ]

Nothing really scientific here, but.... certainly this forum shows how limited human intelligence is. The universe screams design to you because you don't understand how anything works. When you don't understand for some reason people always give up and attribute it to a God. I have no problem with people people saying God started the big bang, but he certainly didn't design anything. Why create a mind blowingly large universe just to fill it up with 99.9% nothing. It's a total fuck up waste.

pete311, you seem to be claiming to have some kind of advanced physics degree, but you are being out-argued by Gunny and Drummond. In the quote here, you claim that Drummond only arrives at conclusions because he doesn't understand how anything works. That's the standard blowhard's claim: "anyone that doesn't agree with me, it's only because they can't comprehend things as well as my incredible brain does." What crap. With that rationale, you can go through life thinking you know more about everything than everybody. That's what you'll be thinking, but that doesn't make it so.

You also seem to think you know better than God, whom you probably don't believe in anyway. You think that because pete311 wouldn't create a universe and fill it up with 99.9% nothing, then God wouldn't have done that either. Maybe God didn't consult pete311 when creating the universe? Did that ever occur to you? Maybe God knows something that pete311 doesn't? Did that ever occur to you?

Stop wallowing in your own hubris, pete311.

[DragonStryk72]

No you didn't build your computer, you just put the pieces together. I'm talking about the physics and mathematics behind microprocessors, LED screens, RAM. That is all designed using the theories that make up the foundation for electromagetism. That is scientific theory in action. Tell me what law does the big bang violate?

The laws of electromagnetism are not theories, and haven't been since the invention of the electromagnet 1824, which confirmed the theory of electromagnetism, turning it into laws as we were to replicate the effects of electromagnetics for full peer review.

No *theories* are used to build computers, only laws. You are giving directly incorrect scientific information.

[DragonStryk72]

There are misconceptions on what a scientific theory is
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

"As used in science (http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/naturescience.html), I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so."


That's a sidestep. The Big Bang Theory has no empirical data supporting, and uses made up matter and energy to force itself to work. How was it empirically tested, when both dark energy and matter are made up things? Empirically, the theory of relativity is incorrect, as the expansion, again is occurring at a much faster rate than theory allows for.

Empirical data on dark energy and matter don't exists, because to quote the definition of empirical, "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Please show me where any scientist has observed dark matter or energy, and is not theorizing, rationalizing, or just positing it's existence.

And again, quantum foam has, in no way been empirically proven, it's yet another theory, and scientists have been unable to confirm the space-time fluctuations that would begin to prove it's existence. Until it's proven to exist, it's another gap.filling theoretical matter being used to explain things in only a hypothetical manner. It's not even truly a theory at this point.

[revelarts]

Oh and the reason satellites work is exactly because of Einsteins theory of relativity.Off the top of my head isn't it Mainly Newton and not Einstein? And it's not "BECAUSE" of , it's since we're aware of the of the LAWS of motion, and waves etc ? But I'm ready to be corrected or embellished here if i'm off.



Guess you've never heard of this pretty fundamental theory of electromagnetism. It's kinda important. I'm stunned how daft you're being.

I would love you to tell me step by step how to build an electrical computer using no scientific theories. Once again I think you are confused at what a science theory is.

Why do I need to spell this out for you. We need to understand the theories of electromagnetism in order to build computers. You claimed no theory has ever produced anything or something like that. If we didn't understand the theories of electromagnetism you computer would not work.


Pete, part of your problem here is it seems you fail to acknowledge that
some things are LAWS largely establish by experiment and use,
That some theories are well established with good data, some very solid aligned observations and some contemporary experimental evidence supporting them.
While some theories have little but hypothetical crap, thin observations slapped together (contradictory observations are ignored), little to zero experimental evidence and folks with Phds and calculators nodding at each other giving those that don't join in the nodding the evil eye.

Here are a few former scientific theories taught by the majority of the scientist.
Spontaneous Generation
miasmas theory of Disesase (bad air)
Phlogiston theory (a combustion theory)
Recapitulation theory (evolution replayed in the womb:laugh:)
Stress theory of ulcers
Expanding Earth (instead of plate tectonics)
there are many more.

just because something's called a "theory" doesn't mean it has a pedigree that makes it equal in weight as all other ideas that have the LABEL "theory"

a 69' Volkswagen Beetle with broken windows, rusted exterior, balled tires and an engine with 2 piston rods through the block and a Brand new 2015 Mercedes-AMG GT are both "German Cars" but to say they are basically the same, or should be valued the same is a real mistake.

[revelarts]

From other threads where this subjects come up
A few things that show the Big Bang is wrong (things that the Big Bang don't explain) are

the spiral arms of galaxies.
Based on gravity and the billions of years ago when these galaxies supposedly formed there should be no spiral arms left.
In only millions of years the spiral arms would have wound up like clock springs and we'd only see disk like masses of stars.
but there they are.

no early galaxies seen.
recently the Hubble telescope looked at a tiny patch of "black" to see as far as possible away and as far back in time as possible.
they expected to find "young" galaxies. but what they found where galaxies that looked "mature". The same as all of the other galaxies we know of. including our own.
So the assumption/prediction of the big bang and it's dates were wrong. The observation does not bare out the big bang timeline.


Star formation is unexplained by the big bang and gravity theory of the cosmos.
Gas does not coalesce in space to form stars, as the story we are told goes.
Temperature and pressure would push the gas particles away from each other before gravity could form stars.
population 3 stars (-original big bang H He stars-) have not been discovered or seen in space.
Stars forming from stars that are already here has more evidence. but the origin of stars in the 1st place has no evidenced based or workable theory via the big bang or accepted physics.


a- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a lot of magnetic monopoles.
Fail. there are none found in the universe.

b- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's microwave background should be different than it is.
Fail. the observed microwave background is asymmetrical and there are problems with the tempture. the big bang model could not have caused whats observed.

c- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a deep curve of some kind.
Fail. the observed universe is flat. what we observe is mathematically impossible if the big bang is true.

those are considered fatal flaws

d- The Big Bang doesn't predict the fine tuning we see in the universe. link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46624-Mutiverse-a-desperate-dodge-from-the-Designer&highlight=multiverse) also see doc "the privileged planet".

e- the Red Shift = distance view that's been one reason the Big Bang was accepted initially has been found not to be the only way to read it or the only reason for Red Shift. There are confirmed stars and quasars that have different red shift but are in the same general area. as well as other red shift anomalies unexplained.Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe".

f- some new galaxy observations show that brightness indicates that the galaxies are not expanding and again the red shift must indicate something else. link (http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html) . that's Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe of the big bang" as well.

g- The Big Bang predicts that the most distance galaxies we observe with our new telescopes will look young since they are close to the big bang.
Fail. Observational data shows the most distance galaxies look the same as the ones near by. that is they look "old".

h- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's cosmic microwave background will have "shadow" of the big bang.
Fail. observations doesn't find one where it should be. link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm)

i- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have as much anti-matter as matter.
Fail. they've been looking for it and have basically concluded it anti there. link (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707087) link (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5368/1339.summary)

j- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a certain amount of lithium-7.
Fail.

k- The Big Bang predicts that we should be able to see stars forming. called "population 3 stars".
Fail. we don't see any. (plus gas in vacuum-near vacuum of space will not coalesce by gravity it will dissipate. so star formation from scratch is a mystery)

There are several more fails to see.

Part 2.
Unobserved particles and forces
Inflation
the above problems are well known and physicist have proposed a solution to a b and c above with "inflation".
inflation asserts a time at the beginning of the universe where it moved at MANY times the speed of light. But that is unobserved and impossible by known standards. Also no one has an solution -in physical reality- for why it started or why it stopped. Plus the "Inflaton" is not an observed particle/force. some say "they are exponentially unlikely".

Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Added to the theory when it failed to predict certain observed phenomena (they're not foundational to the theory it seems but added to the math to adjust the Big Bang to fit the observations), . but it seems neither will ever be observed link (http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html).
But other theories to explain the phenomena they cover are not allowed. Former Chair of Physics at Yale said "dark energy is just code for 'we don't have clue'"

Part 3
Breaks known laws of physics and goes outside of science
- Violates 'conservation of mass energy' 1st law of thermodynamic, the Big Bang says matter and energy came from nothing.

- Big Bang has no cause. no laws, no nothing.

- Multiverses are by their nature are unobservable can't EVER be confirmed or falsified and there are "no laws" in these other universes that must be adhered to so why in ours?.

....................
that's the outline of it
....................

none of the above information detail is OUTSIDE of mainstream at all. The only issue is looking at the combination of these and other observations and concluding the obvious. That it brings into question the validity of the whole big bang theory. That's what's radical. And causes the name calling and denials. Scientist are believers and strong defenders of the faith and paradigms die hard among the lay people as well.

Look up problems with the big bang in an internet search see what you find.

Here one,
a conference notes held by some physicist on the "Crisis in cosmology (http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/table_of_contents/?book_id=463)"

Here's another,
"In an article in 2004, Eric Lerner, who is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, noted: “Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method” (p. 20). He continued:Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions 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. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors (p. 20, emp. added)." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-the-big-bang/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482-900-bucking-the-big-bang/)
Here's another,
"...The arguments against the Big Bang theory are different from those given to reject theories such as relativity or quantum mechanics. While the latter theories have seen some refinements over the years, no major additional hypothesis was added. Both theories have had their predictions confirmed to a very high accuracy.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory has failed repeatedly to produce predictions that agreed with observations. Instead of rejecting the initial assumption of an initial hot, dense state of the universe, a large number of additional hypotheses are used to hide the inconsistencies. Today, more than 95% of the universe is claimed to be made of a substance which has never been seen...."

[pete311]

just because something's called a "theory" doesn't mean it has a pedigree that makes it equal in weight as all other ideas that have the LABEL "theory"

a 69' Volkswagen Beetle with broken windows, rusted exterior, balled tires and an engine with 2 piston rods through the block and a Brand new 2015 Mercedes-AMG GT are both "German Cars" but to say they are basically the same, or should be valued the same is a real mistake.

A theory where the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of bright scientists agree on is one I put my money on. The big bang theory is not just some random idea someone thought in their basement while smoking weed.

Your BB fail thread is full of myths and misconceptions. A simple google search debunks most of these. Most importantly I must stress this one final time. The big bang theory does NOT describe the trigger. It is a theory that describes the expansion and evolution of the universe. NOT it's moment of creation. I'm sick and tired of that coming up.

[pete311]

The laws of electromagnetism are not theories, and haven't been since the invention of the electromagnet 1824, which confirmed the theory of electromagnetism, turning it into laws as we were to replicate the effects of electromagnetics for full peer review.

No *theories* are used to build computers, only laws. You are giving directly incorrect scientific information.

electromagnetic laws are founded on the theories of Maxwell and Einstein

We have quantum computers. You don't think quantum theory come into play?

[pete311]

That's a sidestep. The Big Bang Theory has no empirical data supporting, and uses made up matter and energy to force itself to work. How was it empirically tested, when both dark energy and matter are made up things? Empirically, the theory of relativity is incorrect, as the expansion, again is occurring at a much faster rate than theory allows for.

Empirical data on dark energy and matter don't exists, because to quote the definition of empirical, "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Please show me where any scientist has observed dark matter or energy, and is not theorizing, rationalizing, or just positing it's existence.

And again, quantum foam has, in no way been empirically proven, it's yet another theory, and scientists have been unable to confirm the space-time fluctuations that would begin to prove it's existence. Until it's proven to exist, it's another gap.filling theoretical matter being used to explain things in only a hypothetical manner. It's not even truly a theory at this point.

No doubt we are in the beginning stages of understanding dark matter but all signs are it's a real thing

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

UA Astronomers Report First Direct Evidence For Dark Matter
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ua-astronomers-report-first-direct-evidence-for-dark-matter

How do we know Dark Matter exists?
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/

Quantum foam on a space scale is mathematical, but the existence of random emergence and annihilation of virtual particles at the quantum level is well understood especially with the Casimir effect.

[Gunny]

No doubt we are in the beginning stages of understanding dark matter but all signs are it's a real thing

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

UA Astronomers Report First Direct Evidence For Dark Matter
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ua-astronomers-report-first-direct-evidence-for-dark-matter

How do we know Dark Matter exists?
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/

Quantum foam on a space scale is mathematical, but the existence of random emergence and annihilation of virtual particles at the quantum level is well understood especially with the Casimir effect.

"Dark matter" is BS. The same people that scoff at God speculate on all kinds of crap that has as much proof to it as the Bible. Calling a religion by any other name is STILL a religion. There is ZERO evidence to prove scientific theory where the origin of life is concerned.

[revelarts]

A theory where the vast majority of hundreds of thousands of bright scientists agree on is one I put my money on. The big bang theory is not just some random idea someone thought in their basement while smoking weed.
I'l listen to a big group of scientist but I also want to see the pros and cons of the idea explained to me so i can make my best judgment. if a minority of scientist seem to make more sense based on the evidence I may side with the minority on ANY issue in science politics or whatever.
the size of the group makes no difference in whether or not something is true or false.

reality and science are not determined by votes.




Your BB fail thread is full of myths and misconceptions.

name ONE. and correct it please I'll admit to any real factual errors.
but it seems your "science" is based on majority opinion of the day.




A simple google search debunks most of these.
post ONE please. I'll admit to any real factual errors.
and but remember a reply to the idea doesn't mean it's a good one.
The answer itself has to be sound, and not ANOTHER hypothesis before it solidly refutes an observational point.




Most importantly I must stress this one final time. The big bang theory does NOT describe the trigger. It is a theory that describes the expansion and evolution of the universe. NOT it's moment of creation. I'm sick and tired of that coming up.
um, I listed about 16+ points and only part of 1 point touches on "the trigger". Not sure why you feel the need to "stress" something that's not really addressed in the bulk of the reply.

[pete311]

There is ZERO evidence to prove scientific theory where the origin of life is concerned.

Correct, the big bang does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

[Gunny]

Correct, the big bang does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

DO we have to run in circles? What it attempts to do is explain that something was created from nothing -- a violation of basic scientific law. You can't get past THAT.

[pete311]

I'l listen to a big group of scientist but I also want to see the pros and cons of the idea explained to me so i can make my best judgment. if a minority of scientist seem to make more sense based on the evidence I may side with the minority


name ONE. and correct it please I'll admit to any real factual errors.
but it seems your "science" is based on majority opinion of the day.


um, I listed about 16+ points and only part of 1 point touches on "the trigger". Not sure why you feel the need to "stress" something that's not really addressed in the bulk of the reply.


If the evidence points to a certain direction then that almost always becomes the majority, that is the power of science and my point entirely. Please don't think you can outwit hundreds of thousands of scientists that spend their entire lives working on this stuff.

I have better things to do on a saturday. You made the claims, you back them up. Google search them, it's not hard. Stop copying and pasting myths taken from other crackpots.

I'll give you the first two

Data does suggest that spiral galaxies will lose steam over time as they deplete their gas, however I can't find any information on how many years that actually is. Since our own sun has enough gas for billions of years I am guessing it's not surprising we haven't found any dead spiral galaxies yet.

Faintest galaxy from the early universe, 400 million years after the big bang
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203142416.htm

I do need to stress that fact because it's been brought up over and over in this thread. holy shit, gunny just brought it up again. you guys don't read shit

[pete311]

DO we have to run in circles? What it attempts to do is explain that something was created from nothing -- a violation of basic scientific law. You can't get past THAT.

holy fuck dude, this is now the 5th time I have to say this. BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE MOMENT OF CREATION. IT EXPLAINS THE EVOLUTION AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE.

This is just as bad as creationists and evolution. Evolution explains the process of how animals change, not how life started.

Why can't you understand this.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

holy fuck dude, this is now the 5th time I have to say this. BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE MOMENT OF CREATION. IT EXPLAINS THE EVOLUTION AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE.

This is just as bad as creationists and evolution. Evolution explains the process of how animals change, not how life started.

Why can't you understand this.

He understands it quite well , as do I... You are lying as it was created as a theory to explain as a catch-all, designed to refute/counter - the creation of the universe by God!
And schools often taught it as fact , not theory!
Just because you lied 5 times does not make your lie the truth.
So these enlightened scientists are now 40 years later refuting the big bag theory-
I did that in early 70's.
Amazing how slow some so-called intelligent people are, huh? You for example, comes to mind.
I could school you and make you look even more the fool but have not the precious time to spare.
Best you will get is an occasionally slap from me... and you should thank that to be a blessing, as if I wanted to, I could destroy you with pointing out your ignorance, arrogance and conceit...
I am now a bit kinder in my old age.... -Tyr

[pete311]

He understands it quite well , as do I...

No you guys don't. This is an elementary fact of the theory. You obviously have read zero material on the subject or you'd know this. Nothing about the theory attempts to explain the moment of creation. It does not exist in the theory.

[pete311]

You are lying as it was created as a theory to explain as a catch-all, designed to refute/counter - the creation of the universe by God!


You guys are so dense. Multiple times I've stated that I am fine with people thinking the universe was created by god. I have NEVER claimed otherwise. We don't know what caused the big bang. The big bang theory does not attempt to explain how it was caused. Understand now? Put god there, I don't care. BBT explains how the universe unfolded after the trigger which could have been caused by god. Get it now?

[Gunny]

holy fuck dude, this is now the 5th time I have to say this. BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE MOMENT OF CREATION. IT EXPLAINS THE EVOLUTION AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE.

This is just as bad as creationists and evolution. Evolution explains the process of how animals change, not how life started.

Why can't you understand this.

Oh really? Then WHAT is it trying to explain? The moment of non-creation? The Big Bang theory explains NOTHING. And you're avoiding the topic for the 5th time. Scientific law states you cannot create something from nothing. A simple scientific fact you've avoided for the 6th time.

And you can't expand something that is infinite. So make up your damned mind. You're either a hypocrite, dumber'n shit, or lost in the sauce. Choose one. You want to be scientific? Use some science.

[pete311]

Oh really? Then WHAT is it trying to explain? The moment of non-creation? The Big Bang theory explains NOTHING. And you're avoiding the topic for the 5th time. Scientific law states you cannot create something from nothing. A simple scientific fact you've avoided for the 6th time.

And you can't expand something that is infinite. So make up your damned mind. You're either a hypocrite, dumber'n shit, or lost in the sauce. Choose one. You want to be scientific? Use some science.

ok here is now the 6th time. The big bang explains the evolution of the universe, not it's creation. Put god at creation for all I care. The BBT explains what unfolded afterwards.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No you guys don't. This is an elementary fact of the theory. You obviously have read zero material on the subject or you'd know this. Nothing about the theory attempts to explain the moment of creation. It does not exist in the theory.

Said as you refuse to admit why the theory was created, used and promoted in our education system!
It was to be a scientific explanation stated God did not create the universe or mankind and was taught (and accepted)in that capacity for over 50+ years...
Now that slow witted scientist finally caught up to us ,they are now -like you- trying to deny why it was created and how they used it!
Laughable attempt that will only fool those that were dumb enough to have ever accepted it as fact in the first place IMHO.
I SAW THROUGH IT AT AGE 15....
I refuted it at around age 17....
In fact, did so well that my science teacher himself a strong advocate of the correctness of big bang told me he no longer believed it!
Yes, once in our schools we had teachers that learned and that teachers that were already great.
Additionally we had students that debated with teachers, with no harsh words/disrespect but instead on a very intelligent level.
I did so before age 18 when I went into my full rebel mode.. And found out that so much taught was just very clever lies used to gain and keep control.
As is the case now- only even worse in public education-(full blown lib propaganda and idiocy)-TYR

[pete311]

It was to be a scientific explanation stated God did not create the universe or mankind and was taught (and accepted)in that capacity for over 50+ years...


Here is now the 7th time. Can you guys read? The big bang does not attempt to explain it's cause. Put God there, I don't care. It explains the expansion and evolution after the trigger, which God may have started.

[Gunny]

Here is now the 7th time. Can you guys read? The big bang does not attempt to explain it's cause. Put God there, I don't care. It explains the expansion and evolution after the trigger, which God may have started.

Sure I can read. Can read what YOU are saying. The Big Bang Theory doesn't attempt to explain. Neither does Genesis 1:1. And for the 7th time, you are ignoring the elephant in the damned room. You can't create something from NOTHING. Have to have something in order to create a trigger, right?

And if you want to lay some Big Bang Theory on God? Just makes Him more perfect than I already thought He was.

So how about if YOU listen? So busy running your damned suck you can't hear a word and your argument gets more nonsensical with each post. You're at 7 times by your own admission, right?

[pete311]

Sure I can read. Can read what YOU are saying. The Big Bang Theory doesn't attempt to explain. Neither does Genesis 1:1. And for the 7th time, you are ignoring the elephant in the damned room. You can't create something from NOTHING. Have to have something in order to create a trigger, right?

Something from nothing is about the trigger, not the expansion and evolution, the BBT does not address that. Get it? Put God there, I don't care. God is the trigger for the BB, happy now?

[Gunny]

Something from nothing is about the trigger, not the expansion and evolution, the BBT does not address that. Get it? Put God there, I don't care. God is the trigger for the BB, happy now?

Are you for real? You want to talk junk science and ignore scientific law. And, for the how ever many times, I AM addressing the junk of scientific theory. I can theorize I can f-ing fly but I ain't going to go jump off the roof to see if I can because it's BS and I have no wings.

[pete311]

Are you for real? You want to talk junk science and ignore scientific law. And, for the how ever many times, I AM addressing the junk of scientific theory. I can theorize I can f-ing fly but I ain't going to go jump off the roof to see if I can because it's BS and I have no wings.

I know exactly where this is going to lead, but again tell me which law does the BBT violate? Oh let me guess, the 2nd law of thermo, matter can not be created nor destroyed. And for fucks sake for the 8th time, BBT does not describe the creation. Seriously, this is the 8th time. THE 8TH TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me add some more times to save myself in the future.

The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation
The big bang does not describe creation

[Russ]

Here is now the 7th time. Can you guys read? The big bang does not attempt to explain it's cause. Put God there, I don't care. It explains the expansion and evolution after the trigger, which God may have started.

During this afternoon's football games, I challenge everyone to a contest: Every time pete311 posts anything to the effect of "Here it is for the nth time", a bell rings, we each chug a beer and then make a post on this thread. Last person to post, loses. :rolleyes:

[pete311]

What you're not getting is that the BBT describes a process, not a creation. Just like how you can understand the process of how an engine works without needing to know exactly where and how it was manufactured. Science is opening and tinkering with the engine. Whether we can understand the manufacturer is open for debate.

[jimnyc]

During this afternoon's football games, I challenge everyone to a contest: Every time pete311 posts anything to the effect of "Here it is for the nth time", a bell rings, we each chug a beer and then make a post on this thread. Last person to post, loses. :rolleyes:

If I have to think of Pete, or any other liberal for that fact, while enjoying my games and beers, I may end up with what I call "vomititis". :)

[NightTrain]

How you doing there, Petey Boy?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8052&stc=1

[pete311]

How you doing there, Petey Boy?

oh good one, you got me on that one :clap::lame2:

[jimnyc]

Things Petey and his friends say:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E4Slt0wiiDY/UdPPpCur7VI/AAAAAAAAwMI/VCm7kCqj97Q/s649/stupid+things+liberals+say.jpg

[pete311]

And now this thread has been derailed and ended with juvenile meme images

[Drummond]

Oh and the reason satellites work is exactly because of Einsteins theory of relativity.

Looks like some participants here have been having some fun ...

I've picked out this quote because I want to run a concept past pete311 and see if he can cope with it.

Pete, look at the statement I've quoted from you, and perceive just how ridiculous it is from a logical standpoint.

I understand from your statement that satellites work BECAUSE of a theory Einstein came up with ? So ... if Einstein had never come up with that theory, no satellite today would work ??

How much of a mess would we be in if Einstein had never lived, then ??

Pete .. get a load of this ....

Science ITSELF is Man's construct. The concept of science itself comes from Man .. we INVENTED it. We invented it in the hope of trying to make sense out of everything, and to make use of that 'sense' to achieve something (the 'something' dependent on the area of 'expertise' involved .. ?). Science is not an absolute. It might be our effort to try and discern absolutes, but, since we created science itself (the concept, the associated methodologies) .. it is of necessity wholly limited to our OWN LIMITS .. of intelligence, of concept, of practicability.

In considering the truth of this, go a step further to comprehend how arrogant, and judgemental, your statements are. You say that it makes no sense for the Universe to be as empty as YOU say it is (.. though you have moved enough to admit the possibility of a God having created the Universe, regardless .. well done !). But .. do you arrogantly presume to judge what does or does not make the ULTIMATE sense .. and this, from YOUR limitations of intelligence and conceptual scope ?

Besides, all we 'know' about existence comes from HUMAN UNDERSTANDING of it, which may well, because of our own limits, be pathetically inadequate .. and be doomed to always be such. We make what sense we do of existence according to our 'ability' to .. but how do we know that human capabilities will ever be up to the task ?

We do our best. But we cannot step outside of ourselves and independently review how well we've done ... or judge how badly. Presumptions that we can are self-manufactured delusion.

But if you want to continue with such arrogance ... then try and 'revere' the following:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/


What Is Dark Energy?

More is unknown than is known.

We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues.

The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.

[NightTrain]

And now this thread has been derailed and ended with juvenile meme images


It was amusing to watch you flail desperately... I didn't want to jump in before your thrashing was complete.

[jimnyc]

And now this thread has been derailed and ended with juvenile meme images

Poor little petey.

Here was little petey on election day, guaranteed!

http://theflypaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stupid-liberals-84828625603.jpeg

[NightTrain]

Poor little petey.

Here was little petey on election day, guaranteed!

http://theflypaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stupid-liberals-84828625603.jpeg


Hahahaha! :2up:

[pete311]

It was amusing to watch you flail desperately... I didn't want to jump in before your thrashing was complete.
oh yes my thrashing... as you guys can't even understand the basic premise of the theory you're trying to disprove. again I am comforted by the fact that you guys have literally zero bearing on any important decision on earth and are resigned to acting like fools on an insignificant internet hole.

[NightTrain]

oh yes my thrashing... as you guys can't even understand the basic premise of the theory you're trying to disprove. again I am comforted by the fact that you guys have literally zero bearing on any important decision on earth and are resigned to acting like fools on an insignificant internet hole.


Now, now, Petey... that's not nice.

It's not my fault you chose to engage in this intellectual topic without any ammo on board.

You got owned. Accept it, learn from it, and next time you won't be completely bereft of knowledge when you engage in debate with your intellectual superiors.


A humble Thank You to those that educated you would be the manly thing to do at this point.

[jimnyc]

oh yes my thrashing... as you guys can't even understand the basic premise of the theory you're trying to disprove. again I am comforted by the fact that you guys have literally zero bearing on any important decision on earth and are resigned to acting like fools on an insignificant internet hole.

http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/stupid-liberals-111816949022.jpeg

[pete311]

Now, now, Petey... that's not nice.

It's not my fault you chose to engage in this intellectual topic without any ammo on board.

You got owned. Accept it, learn from it, and next time you won't be completely bereft of knowledge when you engage in debate with your intellectual superiors.


A humble Thank You to those that educated you would be the manly thing to do at this point.

How did I get owned when you don't understand the basic premise of the theory you are trying to disprove? You are all just trolling now and I have better things to do on a nice sunday.

[jimnyc]

How did I get owned when you don't understand the basic premise of the theory you are trying to disprove? You are all just trolling now and I have better things to do on a nice sunday.

Sure you do, little petey, that's why you were here. Me? I have the game on AND making fun of a liberal puke at the same time. I rule!!

[revelarts]

If the evidence points to a certain direction then that almost always becomes the majority, that is the power of science and my point entirely. Please don't think you can outwit hundreds of thousands of scientists that spend their entire lives working on this stuff.
Are you saying we shouldn't think for ourselves?
Just not to bother our pretty little heads and trust the sage majority on faith alone?
Seems yore saying something like the current science fashion is generally right because, well, a lot of smart people who job's, funding and reputation's depend on certain scientific concepts that are in vogue are always perfectly objective.




I have better things to do on a saturday. You made the claims, you back them up. Google search them, it's not hard. Stop copying and pasting myths taken from other crackpots.

I have checked on them. I haven't found much of anything that refutes them.
A lot of hand waving and name calling, a few counter claims and "but it doesn't matter" or "it dosen't mean what you think it means." claims.
but just science facts no. (I'll admit that a few items on this line have been above my pay grade as far as full comprehension goes, but not so ffar that i didn't get the gist)
Mostly the facts are repeated as i've posted EXCEPT they don't put it in context as a problem for the Big Bang.
Sometimes they note that the observations are "surprising" or "a problem" but don't get into why.




I'll give you the first two
Data does suggest that spiral galaxies will lose steam over time as they deplete their gas, however I can't find any information on how many years that actually is. Since our own sun has enough gas for billions of years I am guessing it's not surprising we haven't found any dead spiral galaxies yet.
Ok, well it's my understanding that the problem isn't steam as much as the motion itself means that the galaxies should have wound up into balls over a far less time than the galaxies imagined existents. the arms just folding closer and closer to the center.





Faintest galaxy from the early universe, 400 million years after the big bang
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203142416.htm....
yes,
here's others that gets into the problem
<header>"Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril
By Ron Cowen (https://www.sciencenews.org/author/ron-cowen?mode=magazine&context=4304) 12:13pm, October 3, 2005
Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form. Despite being only about 800 million years old, some of the infants are chock-full of old stars."
</header>https://www.sciencenews.org/article/crisis-cosmos?mode=magazine&context=4304


Early galaxies baffle observers, but theorists shrug.(Meeting: American Astronomical Society) Science
January 23, 2004 | Irion, Robert (https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=author%3a%22Irion%2c+Robert%22&orderBy=Date+DESC) | Copyright
"It's not quite time for theorists to panic, but we're getting there," said astronomer Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto, Canada, after announcing his group's discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe. But although the finding seemed to undermine the standard view of how matter assembled, theorists have respectfully declined to sound the alarm....
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-113055333.html

[jimnyc]

There you go, Mr. Petey, Rev has fulfilled your Sunday for you. :slap:

[pete311]

Are you saying we shouldn't think for ourselves?

If you can open up a PhD level quantum mechanics or astrophysics textbook and understand it. Then you can think for yourself on these types of matters. Otherwise it's like a toddler who plays with legos telling a master mechanic how to tune his racing BMW.

[NightTrain]

How did I get owned when you don't understand the basic premise of the theory you are trying to disprove? You are all just trolling now and I have better things to do on a nice sunday.


I didn't try to disprove anything. I'm simply an innocent, impartial bystander who is grading your performance.

Are you mental?



Now, I will award an extra Man Point for every genuine Thank You that you give to those that deserve it. That would include :

Russ
Gunny
Drummond
Abbey
Rev
Tyr
Dragon


Running a deficit in MPs is to be avoided... I invite you to Cowboy Up and do the right thing. For once.

[jimnyc]

If you can open up a PhD level quantum mechanics or astrophysics textbook and understand it. Then you can think for yourself on these types of matters. Otherwise it's like a toddler who plays with legos telling a master mechanic how to tune his racing BMW.

So worried about the level of replies - then you take the first sentence from Rev and then cut off the rest? LOL Maybe a few tough ones in there, so you cut those out? Don't blame ya, little petey!

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/Dishonest.jpg

[pete311]

I
Are you mental?


You are clearly mental. What universe are you in where the winners are those who don't even understand the theory they are trying to disprove.

[pete311]

So worried about the level of replies - then you take the first sentence from Rev and then cut off the rest? LOL Maybe a few tough ones in there, so you cut those out? Don't blame ya, little petey!



No I don't think my sunday is worth spending a couple hours debunking common decade old misconceptions copy and pasted from other crackpots when all it takes is a simple google search.

and yes I am concerned about the level of reply. it's why we don't have janitors in charge of a nuclear power plant

[revelarts]

If you can open up a PhD level quantum mechanics or astrophysics textbook and understand it. Then you can think for yourself on these types of matters. Otherwise it's like a toddler who plays with legos telling a master mechanic how to tune his racing BMW.

Sorry Pete that's a fail.
the math maybe complex but the concepts aren't.

13+ billion years ago is when they say the the Big Bang happened.
they say that based on the BiG Bang forces that galaxies and stars should take billions of years to form.
BUT they've now seem to have OBSERVED many only 500 million year old fully formed galaxies.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist or quantum mechanics to see the math problem here.
It's similar with other issues.

I have no real idea what a magnetic monopole is but apparently the Big Bang predicts there should be plenty in the observable universe but they are NOT observed.
NO NEED to be a master mechanic to understand the problem.

I could not explain ANTI-Matter to any degree. but the big bang predicts that the universe should be HALF anti-matter and and HALF regular matter. but there is precious to Zero anti-mater observed in the universe.
NO NEED for a astrophysics Phd to understand the problem.

Either the Big bang is is wrong or severely broken if it predicts the universe should be FULL of stuff we don't see.
Hand waving that we're to DUMB to understand doesn't fly, it's dishonest dodge Pete.

A better analogy is the Emporer's new clothes. where Only the best, smartest and refined people could see the Clothes

[jimnyc]

No I don't think my sunday is worth spending a couple hours debunking common decade old misconceptions copy and pasted from other crackpots when all it takes is a simple google search.

and yes I am concerned about the level of reply. it's why we don't have janitors in charge of a nuclear power plant

In other words, you pick and choose what you will reply to, and no explanation outside of that. And then around the same time, you want to complain about the level of responses you may receive from others. You trolled your own thread. You trolled yourself. If I were Revelarts, I would tell you kindly to swish my left ball sack around in your mouth. All that time he spent and you literally cut it and ignore it. But I can't really tell you what to do with my gonads, as it wasn't me you were replying to.

[Gunny]

I see Pete's made a bunch of new friends while I was off getting laundry detergent for the little lady. :laugh2:

[pete311]

In other words, you pick and choose what you will reply to, and no explanation outside of that. And then around the same time, you want to complain about the level of responses you may receive from others. You trolled your own thread. You trolled yourself. If I were Revelarts, I would tell you kindly to swish my left ball sack around in your mouth. All that time he spent and you literally cut it and ignore it. But I can't really tell you what to do with my gonads, as it wasn't me you were replying to.
Give me a second while I post a hundred links to bullshit so you can spend 100 hours debunking it. Ready?

[Gunny]

Give me a second while I post a hundred links to bullshit so you can spend 100 hours debunking it. Ready?

Took me only one post to debunk your BS. And I ain't even the sharpest knife in the drawer. Ain't hard to smell bullshit though and I got good common sense. When you're saying one thing and everyone else is saying another you might want to consider that YOU are the one that's wrong.

Only one of us I don't know is YOU. And it seems to me you're getting your ass handed to you by everyone I DO know. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Give me a second while I post a hundred links to bullshit so you can spend 100 hours debunking it. Ready?

Hundred? More like he posted TWO links, while replying to a post in which you posted one link. Wow. Oh my. One whole link more than yours. Want me to ban him? How long, one day or three? LOL

Don't act like you're so much better than others is all I'm saying. We all have our good and bad days. But you sometimes post as if you're a God of sorts and no one here really offers debates in return, or at all. Simply not true my good man, not true. But when you DO find some time in the hectic life you choose, we can always set you up with a one on one debate? How would that sound? And maybe against NightTrain? This way you can publicly stick it to him! Wer can even open the voting up to the public, so that you can't say he got votes because of friends here. Hell, we can even link it over to your friends at DU so they can vote too! :)

I'm kinda dumb though myself. I can debate with you if you like, about just how stupid liberals are. I'll of course provide much, much data to backup my claims. For starters, my opponent. :2up:

I love ya, petey man!! Gimme a kiss!! :beer:

[Gunny]

Hundred? More like he posted TWO links, while replying to a post in which you posted one link. Wow. Oh my. One whole link more than yours. Want me to ban him? How long, one day or three? LOL

Don't act like you're so much better than others is all I'm saying. We all have our good and bad days. But you sometimes post as if you're a God of sorts and no one here really offers debates in return, or at all. Simply not true my good man, not true. But when you DO find some time in the hectic life you choose, we can always set you up with a one on one debate? How would that sound? And maybe against NightTrain? This way you can publicly stick it to him! Wer can even open the voting up to the public, so that you can't say he got votes because of friends here. Hell, we can even link it over to your friends at DU so they can vote too! :)

I'm kinda dumb though myself. I can debate with you if you like, about just how stupid liberals are. I'll of course provide much, much data to backup my claims. For starters, my opponent. :2up:

I love ya, petey man!! Gimme a kiss!! :beer:

New soothing ointment in aisle 2 for the recently reamed orifice that hurts Pet the most. :laugh2:

I'd suggest having a moderator in any debate with Pete since he can't straight up address an issue. If NT wants to debate him I'll watch. I've got 3 pages of bored with this guy's ass.

[pete311]

Sorry Pete that's a fail.
the math maybe complex but the concepts aren't.

13+ billion years ago is when they say the the Big Bang happened.
they say that based on the BiG Bang forces that galaxies and stars should take billions of years to form.
BUT they've now seem to have OBSERVED many only 500 million year old fully formed galaxies.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist or quantum mechanics to see the math problem here.
It's similar with other issues.

I have no real idea what a magnetic monopole is but apparently the Big Bang predicts there should be plenty in the observable universe but they are NOT observed.
NO NEED to be a master mechanic to understand the problem.

I could not explain ANTI-Matter to any degree. but the big bang predicts that the universe should be HALF anti-matter and and HALF regular matter. but there is precious to Zero anti-mater observed in the universe.
NO NEED for a astrophysics Phd to understand the problem.

Either the Big bang is is wrong or severely broken if it predicts the universe should be FULL of stuff we don't see.
Hand waving that we're to DUMB to understand doesn't fly, it's dishonest dodge Pete.

A better analogy is the Emporer's new clothes. where Only the best, smartest and refined people could see the Clothes

The concepts are only easy if you learn them extremely shallowly. This is exactly how misconceptions are made. The concepts are born from the math, but can't be fully described with human language. So common words used to describe the math may mean different things to different people. This is why knowing the math is so important. Otherwise you end up arguing semantics and not what the math really describes.

Actually astronmers think galaxies formed as soon as 200 million years after the big bang. What is your point. How does that falsify the theory?

Yes magnetic monopoles are predicted and have no yet been found. It's a problem to work out and find. Doesn't mean they don't exist. We just haven't found them yet.

Yes there is a anti/matter imbalance problem. Still doesn't falsify the theory. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

The big bang is not broken, but we certainly have a lot to learn and discover. The issues raised don't falsify the theory. We just need to figure them out. Science is about putting together the puzzle. Right now some pieces are missing but the image and borders are pretty clear.

[pete311]

Took me only one post to debunk your BS.

Says the man who for like 5 pages couldn't figure out what the basic premise of the big bang was.

[pete311]

Don't act like you're so much better than others is all I'm saying.

I just get frustrated when members turn to trolling when my basic statements are quite clear. I have been more than generous here by completely acknowledging a God could have been responsible for lighting the big bang. Yet many members still struggle with understanding that the big bang theory does not attempt to answer the spark question, only what follows. That is what makes me go off the deep end.

[jimnyc]

I just get frustrated when members turn to trolling when my basic statements are quite clear. I have been more than generous here by completely acknowledging a God could have been responsible for lighting the big bang. Yet many members still struggle with understanding that the big bang theory does not attempt to answer the spark question, only what follows. That is what makes me go off the deep end.

I didn't even read the first 6 or so pages. I just came in and dropped a few pictures. I hate this never ending argument that we all know will literally never end. No one will likely ever change their mind on this stuff. I used this thread as an opportunity to take a few cheap shots at you. All in good fun though. Sometimes when your favorite team doesn't play until 8:30, the next best thing is messin' with some liberals. :laugh:

[revelarts]

The concepts are only easy if you learn them extremely shallowly.

not as much you make it seem.



Actually astronmers think galaxies formed as soon as 200 million years after the big bang. What is your point. How does that falsify the theory?

Only after observations seem to have blown the whole in the theory.
check the previous post
"...after announcing his group's discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe. But although the finding seemed to undermine the standard view of how matter assembled,..."

As you mentioned earlier theories are a collection or concepts, these observations show the big bang predictions here to be WRONG on the timing by billions of years.




Yes magnetic monopoles are predicted and have no yet been found. It's a problem to work out and find. Doesn't mean they don't exist. We just haven't found them yet.

Yes there is a anti/matter imbalance problem. Still doesn't falsify the theory. Read more about it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry
since they haven't been found and should be abundant that's a problem. it's not like lost keys, the universe should be filled with them.
The prediction is false on it's face. To claim we just haven't found them yet is fine i guess, but that's faith in the theory not backed by any scientific observation or evidence.



The big bang is not broken, but we certainly have a lot to learn and discover. The issues raised don't falsify the theory. We just need to figure them out. Science is about putting together the puzzle. Right now some pieces are missing but the image and borders are pretty clear.

well they do falsify various parts of the theory and collectively rip it in pieces putting it in the position mentioned by Dragons 1st post "scientist theorize that the big bang never happened" or at least many scientist who --do have Phds and teach the subject--- aren't so sure anymore.
not as sure as you seem to be that's for sure. The new data coming in doesn't support the big bang predictions.
Good science changes after more data comes in Pete, this might be one of theses times, are you going to be a flat earthier here?

[pete311]

Good science changes after more data comes in Pete, this might be one of theses times, are you going to be a flat earthier here?

Of course not, that is the power of science. If evidence comes out that proves to falsify the big bang then that will be amazing and I will celebrate that, along with tens of thousands of scientists. As of today nothing falsifys the theory and is still our best attempt to explain the process.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course not, that is the power of science. If evidence comes out that proves to falsify the big bang then that will be amazing and I will celebrate that, along with tens of thousands of scientists. As of today nothing falsifys the theory and is still our best attempt to explain the process.




http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt

Is the Big Bang a Bust?
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of
the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. By
Eric Lerner New York: Random House, 1991, 466 pp. Cloth,
$21.95.

Lerner's case against the big bang is composed
of several different lines of argument. The first is
conventional scientific criticism: The big-bang
conjecture is said to be invalidated by the data.
Cosmologists have a theory, the big bang, that makes
specific quantitative and qualitative predictions that are
tested against observations. They claim success for a
significant majority of these tests, far exceeding all
alternatives. The recent highly-publicized results from
the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) provide
further evidence for the validity of the big-bang model.
While admitting that a detailed, satisfactory explanation
of several phenomena, notably large-scale structure
formation, is yet to be provided, big-bang cosmologists
do not see this as fatal. Lerner, however, argues that
these deficiencies are so severe as to invalidate the
whole notion of a universe finite in time and space.
The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't
seriously expect to prove it in a popular book. The issue
is hardly likely to be settled without the technical
detail, careful reasoning, and expert critical review of
the conventional scientific paper or monograph, which
this is not. Lerner attempts to go over the heads of
cosmologists to the general public. Despite current
criticism of science, I see no sign that the public is
demanding suffrage in the determination of scientific
truth.
The author does not limit himself to a scientific
critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda.
His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very
thought processes of conventional science as well. He
argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a
throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather
than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of
the scientific revolution.
According to the author, the equations used in big-
bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the
ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms.
Even after these equations are shown to disagree with
observational facts, as Lerner claims they have been,
they are retained by big bangers because of an irrational
prejudice that the theory must be correct regardless of
the facts. Rather than discard the big-bang theory,
cosmologists invent new unobserved phenomena, such as
cosmic strings and invisible dark matter, to "save the
phenomena."
The big bang is promoted, in Lerner's view,
because science has sacrificed its soul to theology. The
theory confirms the theological notion of creation _ex
nihilo_: The universe is finite, having a definite
beginning, created with a fixed design, and gradually
winding down under the inexorable effect of the second
law of thermodynamics.
Lerner argues that this picture disintegrates on
exposure to observed facts, not just those gathered with
telescopes but common experience as well. From
everyday observations, the universe is growing and
evolving to a state of increasing order. The second law
is simply wrong, or wrongfully interpreted.
The curved space and black holes predicted by
general relativity are likewise not common experience,
but the result of abstruse mathematics. Lerner says we
should believe what our eyes tell us, not some
fashionable mathematical equation.
Finally, Lerner finds within this cosmotheological
conspiracy the source of most of the evils of society.
The slavery of the past and the continued
authoritarianism of the present somehow arise from the
idea that the universe came into being at an explosive
instant and is headed toward ultimate decay. He says the
big bang is a convenient paradigm employed by an unholy
alliance between church and state to subjugate humanity.
In their view, the material world came from nothing and
is next to nothing, transient and meaningless in the face
of the eternal, limitless power of God.
Lerner's alternative universe is based on the
matter-antimatter symmetric plasma cosmology
promoted for years by Nobel laureate Hannes AlfvŽn.
Most conventional cosmologists insist that plasma
cosmology is inconsistent with observational data. In
particular, AlfvŽn's universe is half matter and half
antimatter; yet no more than one part in a billion of
antimatter is observed anywhere in the universe.
What arguments does Lerner use to promote the
plasma universe? Again they fall into the same classes
as his arguments against the big bang. And they possess
the same flaws he purports to find in conventional
cosmological argument.
While castigating big-bang cosmologists for using
hypothesis-testing, Lerner is not beyond claiming
successful tests of the hypotheses of plasma cosmology.
While maligning big bangers for inventing new ad hoc
entities, such as the dark matter, to "save the
phenomena," he introduces unobserved, invisible
"filaments" throughout the universe to scatter the
microwave background and make it isotropic as the data
require. (The big bang requires nothing ad hoc here, and,
in fact, _predicted _ the microwave background.) While
he derides the mathematical equations of general
relativity for being inferred from arguments of
symmetry and elegance, rather than directly from
experiment, Lerner extols the marvels of Maxwell's
equations of electromagnetism - also inferred as much
from arguments of symmetry and elegance as from
observation. And while he criticizes the theological
nature of creation _ex nihilo_, he calls on the equally
mystical ideas of Teilhard de Chardin.
Has Eric Lerner punctured the big-bang balloon so
that its collapse is at hand? I doubt it. The big-bang
theory is in no more trouble than the theory of evolution.
Creationists tried and failed to invalidate evolution by
trumpeting a few of the problems biologists still argue
over. Similarly, Lerner tries and fails to invalidate the
big bang by drawing attention to its current unsolved
problems, declaring them fatal while ignoring the
theory's many successes, unmatched by any
alternative theory.
The first successful test of the big bang occurred
with the discovery of the microwave background in 1964.
Lerner dismisses this prediction, labeling it a failure
because the measured temperature of the radiation was
lower than predicted. But the important result was that
the radiation was there at all. No other theory, including
plasma cosmology, foresaw this. Lerner's argument
here is like someone saying that Columbus failed to prove
that the earth was round since he set foot in the
Americas, rather than East Indies, where he had expected
to land.
Lerner also argues that the universe must be much
older than the 15 to 20 billion years required by standard
big-bang theory. He claims that the large structures
being observed by astronomers ". . . . were just too big
to have formed in the twenty billion years since the big
bang" (p. 23). While current cosmology has yet to
accommodate these structures, Lerner has not
demonstrated that it never will within the big-bang
framework. His calculation is based on the _lengths_ of
the structures, the longest being somewhat less than a
billion light-years. In fact, only their _widths_, tens or
hundreds times smaller, need be explained. In a 15 to 20
billion year-old universe, ample time exists to generate
a structure a billion light-years long and a hundred
million light-years wide. We just do not yet know the
exact mechanism.
The fact is: No observation rules out the big bang
theory at this time. And the big bang theory is
successful in quantitatively explaining many
observations. For example, calculations on the synthesis
of light chemical elements in the big bang give
remarkable agreement with measured abundances.
Lerner uses the kinds of arguments one often hears
in public discourse on science, but rarely among
professional scientists themselves. For example, he
argues that plasma cosmology is in closer agreement
with everyday observation than big-bang cosmology, and
hence is the more sensible. A look through a telescope
reveals spirals and other structures similar to those
observed in the plasma laboratory (and, as cosmologist
Rocky Kolb has remarked, in your bathroom toilet as
well). Following Lerner's line of reasoning, we would
conclude, as people once did, that the earth is flat, that
the sun goes around the earth, and that species are
immutable. The scientific revolution taught us to
question commonsense expectations.
Finally I want to comment on Lerner's
connection of the big bang to the Judeo-Christian concept
of Creation. I agree with the author in condemning the
way the big bang has been exploited by preachers, popes,
and some scientist-authors of popular books, as
providing an imagined link between science and religion,
and even a verification of the existence of a Creator. We
have seen this phenomenon repeated as the recent COBE
results are trumpeted by the media as evidence for
God's presence "shining through" in the design
of the universe. These commentators do not understand
that quite the opposite is the case. No support for
creation by design can be found in the theory of the big
bang.
Complete quantum chaos must have existed at an early
moment of the big bang (the _Planck Time_, 10^-43
second). All we know about the universe is consistent
with a beginning that was a spontaneous quantum
fluctuation, with structure and physical laws deve..........

Since 92, many more holes have been punched into the theory.

Note this-


We have seen this phenomenon repeated as the recent COBE
results are trumpeted by the media as evidence for
God's presence "shining through" in the design
of the universe. These commentators do not understand
that quite the opposite is the case. No support for
creation by design can be found in the theory of the big
bang.
^^^^ No support , by design was ever to be found. Science protects itself and its denial against
the concept of God created Universe.
As I noted before the theory's creation was man(scientists) saying God did not do it. -Tyr

[pete311]

Since 92, many more holes have been punched into the theory.

Oh look you found a book written by an anti-science crackpot. 10pts for you!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh look you found a book written by an anti-science crackpot. 10pts for you!

Call him what you like but more and more scientists are admitting that the big bang theory was and is a damn crock.
And more scientists are admitting that the universe was designed-created not happenstance from a block of matter so massive that no explosion COULD EVER shatter it and send trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of tons of matter expanding out as speeds exceeded that of light for over 5 billions years now.
Give me any the mathematical equation that proves such an explosion could occur within a mass that dense with a gravity that no man could ever imagine!
REMEMBER THE " SUPPOSED FORCE" THAT ONCE HELD IT ALL TOGETHER?
1.HOW/WHY- DID THAT FORCE COMPLETELY REVERSE ITSELF IN ONE TEN MILLIONTH OF A SECOND?
Thats the question that stumped my teacher back in the 70's and made he rethink believeing the big bang crock. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Of course not, that is the power of science. If evidence comes out that proves to falsify the big bang then that will be amazing and I will celebrate that, along with tens of thousands of scientists. As of today nothing falsifys the theory and is still our best attempt to explain the process.

It looks like until the "majority" of scientist tell you it's Ok, then you'll just assume the others are "crackpots" and "anti-science".

Why is it "anti-science" to TEST and challenge prevailing theories? The skeptics of the minority views of science are how it's advanced right?

Biologist and drs --in the minority-- challenged the prevailing views of hundreds or thousands of their colleges when they questioned the humors and bad air and blood letting. The big bang itself was a fringe idea. But somehow nearly all the promoters of new ideas suffered the kind of abuse you're now giving those that are questioning and refuting the Big Bang. It's a well known but less advertised part of the scientific process. Often the old paradigms don't die an easy death. True believers like yourself want more than raw evidence you want a much higher standard of evidence AND consensus opinion 1st for some reason.
But shouldn't you CELEBRATE the process that challenges and test all the assertions of science? One of the coolest things I've discovered about science is how much we DON'T know. Few of the larger concepts are airtight and irrefutable at some level. Especially those that try to imagine events in the deep past that cannot be repeated.

[pete311]

Give me any the mathematical equation that proves such an explosion could occur within a mass that dense with a gravity that no man could ever imagine!
REMEMBER THE " SUPPOSED FORCE" THAT ONCE HELD IT ALL TOGETHER?
1.HOW/WHY- DID THAT FORCE COMPLETELY REVERSE ITSELF IN ONE TEN MILLIONTH OF A SECOND?
Thats the question that stumped my teacher back in the 70's and made he rethink believeing the big bang crock. -Tyr

Don't need to. Now for the 9th time. The big bang doesn't deal with creation of the trigger, only what followed. (drink up whoever was playing the game). Stumping a middle school science teacher 40 years ago doesn't falsify a theory.

[pete311]

It looks like until the "majority" of scientist tell you it's Ok, then you'll just assume the others are "crackpots" and "anti-science".

Why is it "anti-science" to TEST and challenge prevailing theories? The skeptics of the minority views of science are how it's advanced right?

It is positively scientific to test and challenge everything about science. That's what makes it so amazing. If you are referring to the crackpot book that was posted. That is not science. That is total pseudoscience philosophical anti-science baloney. If you can't immediately see that...



Biologist and drs --in the minority-- challenged the prevailing views of hundreds or thousands of their colleges when they questioned the humors and bad air and blood letting. The big bang itself was a fringe idea. But somehow nearly all the promoters of new ideas suffered the kind of abuse you're now giving those that are questioning and refuting the Big Bang. It's a well known but less advertised part of the scientific process. Often the old paradigms don't die an easy death. True believers like yourself want more than raw evidence you want a much higher standard of evidence AND consensus opinion 1st for some reason.
But shouldn't you CELEBRATE the process that challenges and test all the assertions of science? One of the coolest things I've discovered about science is how much we DON'T know. Few of the larger concepts are airtight and irrefutable at some level. Especially those that try to imagine events in the deep past that cannot be repeated.

I generally agree. The problem is there is an awful lot of bad science. This is what is so great about the peer review system in science. You develop something and it's checked and verified by thousands of other bright scientists. The cream rises to the top and the sludge to the bottom. Unfortunately the sludge sticks around in some places and more often than not get traction by people with agendas even if the scientific community dismisses it.

[revelarts]

It is positively scientific to test and challenge everything about science. That's what makes it so amazing. If you are referring to the crackpot book that was posted. That is not science. That is total pseudoscience philosophical anti-science baloney. If you can't immediately see that...

How can you "immediately" see it without checking the data.
the answer is, you can't.



I generally agree. The problem is there is an awful lot of bad science. This is what is so great about the peer review system in science. You develop something and it's checked and verified by thousands of other bright scientists. The cream rises to the top and the sludge to the bottom. Unfortunately the sludge sticks around in some places and more often than not get traction by people with agendas even if the scientific community dismisses it.
the peer review process has pros and cons as well.
Publishing research data/concepts publicly so all other scientist can review it openly and if experimental then attempt to repeat the processes seems a better process.
Peer review sends work to a limited establishment body 1st (not thousands) that decide whether or not thousands or Zero will see the new concepts or get funded or tenure etc..

[pete311]

How can you "immediately" see it without checking the data.
the answer is, you can't.


I don't see any data. All I see are junk ramblings like

"The author does not limit himself to a scientific
critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda.
His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very
thought processes of conventional science as well. He
argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a
throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather
than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of
the scientific revolution.
According to the author, the equations used in big-
bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the
ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms."



the peer review process has pros and cons as well.
Publishing research data/concepts publicly so all other scientist can review it openly and if experimental then attempt to repeat the processes seems a better process.
Peer review sends work to a limited establishment body 1st (not thousands) that decide whether or not thousands or Zero will see the new concepts or get funded or tenure etc..

No doubt big business has screwed up some peer review with pay gates, but there are some very successful and public repositories like http://arxiv.org/

[Russ]

Don't need to. Now for the 9th time. The big bang doesn't deal with creation of the trigger, only what followed. (drink up whoever was playing the game). Stumping a middle school science teacher 40 years ago doesn't falsify a theory.

Everybody drink a beer...
:beer:

[Russ]

No I don't think my sunday is worth spending a couple hours debunking common decade old misconceptions copy and pasted from other crackpots when all it takes is a simple google search.

and yes I am concerned about the level of reply. it's why we don't have janitors in charge of a nuclear power plant

Don't worry, it a couple more years they may actually put you in charge of the nuclear power plant. Maybe they'll give you a brush, too.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Don't need to. Now for the 9th time. The big bang doesn't deal with creation of the trigger, only what followed. (drink up whoever was playing the game). Stumping a middle school science teacher 40 years ago doesn't falsify a theory.

High school science teacher that taught advanced math to high school seniors as well.
Guy was not a dummy like so many young teachers are these days.
And thats was incidental info , not intended to prove the refutation of the crap theory.
Since that time science came up with string theory and black matter theories to try to patch the holes found in Big bang. NONE TRULY WORK.
Face it-- you magically want to start at a point in time that you think can help big bang remain viable but
science does not allow for cherry picking like that my friend.
Please tell me how anybody can explain or prove a mass of matter in the trillions of trillions miles deep in all directions -held together by that massive unknown force suddenly in one ten millionth of second reversed and went in the complete opposite direction. No longer held matter together but instead forced it apart at light speed!
I am no dummy and neither was that science teacher....
He saw and admitted what you deny. And did so to a kid..
Takes real integrity to do that amigo..... -Tyr

[pete311]

Please tell me how anybody can explain or prove a mass of matter in the trillions of trillions miles deep in all directions -held together by that massive unknown force suddenly in one ten millionth of second reversed and went in the complete opposite direction. No longer held matter together but instead forced it apart at light speed!


No one can explain that. No one is claiming they can. Certainly not the BBT. Put your God there, I don't care. 10th time now. Drink up everyone.

[revelarts]

I don't see any data. All I see are junk ramblings like

"The author does not limit himself to a scientific
critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda.
His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very
thought processes of conventional science as well. He
argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a
throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather
than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of
the scientific revolution.
According to the author, the equations used in big-
bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the
ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms."


I and others have posted basic data, and links to learners and others data elsewhere but for some reason you are purposely ignoring that stuff and focusing on the unscientific bits that bother you as if they are the MAIN part of the argument, they are not.
Seems your not acting like a "scientist" that relishes evidentiary challenge, your acting like a untrained "true believer" protecting the faith.
looking for personal reasons, and skipping or blowing off the hard questions with stuff like " it's not a problem we'll find out one day" butscience is not suppose to act like that is it?
If your were a dr and and someone said "we'll find the bad humors one day", after you'd been told that germs have been seen under a microscope would you still hold to the humors theory because the majority still did?


No doubt big business has screwed up some peer review with pay gates, but there are some very successful and public repositories like http://arxiv.org/
It's not just big biz, the peer reviews themselves are corralled and limited by academia. Bleeding edge "radical" papers often don't make it past small local establishment academic gatekeepers at universities and boards to even reach the pay gate stage.

[pete311]

I and others have posted basic data, and links to learners and others data elsewhere but for some reason you are purposely ignoring that stuff and focusing on the unscientific bits that bother you as if they are the MAIN part of the argument, they are not.

The various problems with Lerners pop sci bad science. He is a well known crackpot.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html



Seems your not acting like a "scientist" that relishes evidentiary challenge, your acting like a untrained "true believer" protecting the faith.


Science is always working on new ideas. I am accepting of all them where the scientific community has consensus. Consensus doesn't mean the theory is complete or perfect or that something else won't come along and shatter everything, but at the moment it's the most successful theory we have on the evolution of the universe. Science has not let me down. Take a look around you. See what science has built. Everything is math and science. From your simple clothes to the car you drive.



looking for personal reasons, and skipping or blowing off the hard questions with stuff like " it's not a problem we'll find out one day" butscience is not suppose to act like that is it?
If your were a dr and and someone said "we'll find the bad humors one day", after you'd been told that germs have been seen under a microscope would you still hold to the humors theory because the majority still did?


No one is blowing off the hard questions. People are working on them and there are amazing discoveries every year. Again, it's a puzzle where we have a the borders and can see the image, we are just missing some pieces.

As evidence changes so does the majority. That is why I trust it. Go ahead and falsify the big bang theory. You'll instantly win a nobel prize.

[Abbey Marie]

Geez, thanks for the hangover. ;)

I don't know if the BBT is true, or completely impossible. (And I suspect neither does anyone else, really).

But I will say this- if God wanted to create the universe in that way, He certainly could have done it.

I think what Pete is trying to say here is, we have two separate issues:
1. Did God design/create the universe?
2. Whether or not #1 is true, does the BBT explain the expansion of the universe?

The real hubris is in thinking we can actually know the how of it all. I look forward to having these questions answered when I see Him. Assuming I still care at about such mundane things in His holy presence.

[Gunny]

Geez, thanks for the hangover. ;)

I don't know if the BBT is true, or completely impossible. (And I suspect neither does anyone else, really).

But I will say this- if God wanted to create the universe in that way, He certainly could have done it.

I think what Pete is trying to say here is, we have two separate issues:
1. Did God design/create the universe?
2. Whether or not #1 is true, does the BBT explain the expansion of the universe?

The real hubris is in thinking we can actually know the how of it all. I look forward to having these questions answered when I see Him. Assuming I still care at about such mundane things in His holy presence.

My point is, and this thread is pretty much proof, NO ONE KNOWS. Yet, you have the scientific theory geeks who swear their theory is better than the Bible's. With the same amount of no proof.

And I always ask the same two questions: How can you expand something that is infinite; and, how do you create something from nothing? If God created the universe, then he existed. If he existed, then there is no Big Bang Theory because He had to exist somewhere. I don't think He just popped up out of nowhere.

[pete311]

I think what Pete is trying to say here is, we have two separate issues:
1. Did God design/create the universe?
2. Whether or not #1 is true, does the BBT explain the expansion of the universe?


Precisely. I am not interested in wasting my time discussing #1. This whole thread is about #2.

[pete311]

And I always ask the same two questions: How can you expand something that is infinite; and, how do you create something from nothing? If God created the universe, then he existed. If he existed, then there is no Big Bang Theory because He had to exist somewhere. I don't think He just popped up out of nowhere.

I think this is the 11th time now. BBT describes the evolution, not the creation of the universe. I also think you make a few severe assumptions here. In the end it may be our biological brains that limit our chance of understanding. Some of these questions we may not be built to understand.

[fj1200]

That is the beauty of science. It keeps getting better, corrected, refined. A dusty old book of poorly written fairy tales that explains nothing about the world does not.

But that's the misnomer. Nobody is claiming that the science doesn't exists; ID or creation or whatever says that we are where we are because of some sort of guiding process.


Nice sidestep there. You should be honest and address the point that these theories you are willing to bet your eternal life on as being rock-solid true, change.

I would not choose to put faith in something so changeable, and neither should you. Would you build your house on shifting sands?

I think that is a different question. ID and science are not on the same footing.


Science ITSELF is Man's construct. The concept of science itself comes from Man .. we INVENTED it.

Science is not man's construct. Man discovered the science that already exists.

[Gunny]

I think this is the 11th time now. BBT describes the evolution, not the creation of the universe. I also think you make a few severe assumptions here. In the end it may be our biological brains that limit our chance of understanding. Some of these questions we may not be built to understand.

And for the 12th time, it's nothing but guesswork. You're going with an unproven process. I DO agree that our brains limit our guesswork. When Man presumes to be God, he's got to take God out of the picture. Man's arrogance has created the scientific theory people because Man can't accept anything being superior to him. And we waste BILLIONS and TRILLIONS trying to prove something we can't, and disprove something we can't. How about we apply that money to the $19 trillion we're in debt?

[fj1200]

And for the 12th time, it's nothing but guesswork.

Sometimes that's called science.

[Gunny]

Sometimes that's called science.

So's the Bible. I'm well-acquainted with the difference between factual science and scientific theory.

[pete311]

And for the 12th time, it's nothing but guesswork. You're going with an unproven process.

hmmmm no sorry it's not guesswork. Science is not founded on ignorant men in a basement shouting out ideas. We didn't land a man on the moon with guesswork. We didn't land a probe on a moving comet millions of miles away into space using guesswork. We didn't built the LHC particle accelerator using guesswork. You are very deep in a delusion. You are right now using an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment that was not designed using guesswork.

I'm not going to comment on your bible stuff. It is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

[Gunny]

hmmmm no sorry it's not guesswork. Science is not founded on ignorant men in a basement shouting out ideas. We didn't land a man on the moon with guesswork. We didn't land a probe on a moving comet millions of miles away into space using guesswork. We didn't built the LHC particle accelerator using guesswork. You are very deep in a delusion. You are right now using an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment that was not designed using guesswork.

I'm not going to comment on your bible stuff. It is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Wrong. It's NOTHING BUT guesswork. Theory has a meaning. It's called guesswork. Might want to find someone else to play with. There's a BIG difference between scientific theory and actual science. I think I already pointed that out about 3 pages ago.

And think about what you just said. How many trillions of dollars have we spent sending a piece of machinery out into nowhere? Space? Who gives a crap? Pay off the deficit. I could give a rat's ass what's beyond Pluto or whether or not some geek decides it is or isn't a planet.

Now back to the point ... your Big Bang Theory and Expanding universe theory are bullshit guesswork. And yeah. God does come into play since YOU invoked His name.

I've made 3 logical points and you have not responded to those points in 4 pages. Afraid of something? Like being wrong?

[DragonStryk72]

electromagnetic laws are founded on the theories of Maxwell and Einstein

We have quantum computers. You don't think quantum theory come into play?

We have computers that can run quantum computations based on the input algorithims of the developers, but laws of electromagnets and electricity are used to govern the vast, overwhelming majority of ALL computers.

This is ANOTHER sidestep, pete. All Laws were once theories, but theories are not LAWS. They cease being theories when the laws are proven. If you study science at all, you should know this. It's like knowing the different between the concept sketch and an actual road worthy car.

[Drummond]

Science is not man's construct. Man discovered the science that already exists.

Indeed ? Name me a list of other species - any at all - that have any concept of science.

It'll seem about as credible as your continuing to claim you're a Thatcherite ... :rolleyes:

What we consider we 'know' of science, likewise is limited to us AS A SPECIES .. and has been subject, completely, to our capacity for understanding AND categorisation. How many science devotees would've once told you that the Earth was flat ? They would've said ... open your eyes, see for yourself, the proof is right in front of you, and how crazy are you for ever doubting such proof !

Another one - that the Earth was at the very centre of creation itself ? Or another .. that alchemy was, or could be, something rooted in scientific principle ...

Perhaps all of the theories (i.e Man's inventions) about the beginning of the Universe are wrong, and nobody has yet come up with the correct version ? Which will relegate all existing theories (i.e Man's inventions) to the status that alchemy NOW holds in our history .. eh, FJ ?

The very concept of science didn't exist before Man thought of it. All we consider we've discovered is, absolutely so, a product of Man's capacity to hold the concepts we CAN hold.

Do fish have a concept of outer space ? CAN they have .. EVER ? Maybe there's an intelligence somewhere in Creation that would regard us, with total justification, as we regard our goldfish .. ?

Our grasp of reality, for all you know, may be comparable to Neanderthal Man's grasp of quantum physics.

[Gunny]

Indeed ? Name me a list of other species - any at all - that have any concept of science.

It'll seem about as credible as your continuing to claim you're a Thatcherite ... :rolleyes:

What we consider we 'know' of science, likewise is limited to us AS A SPECIES .. and has been subject, completely, to our capacity for understanding AND categorisation. How many science devotees would've once told you that the Earth was flat ? Or that the Earth was at the very centre of creation itself ? Or .. that alchemy was, or could be, something rooted in scientific principle ?

Perhaps all of the theories (i.e Man's inventions) about the beginning of the Universe are wrong, and nobody has yet come up with the correct version ? Which will relegate all existing theories (i.e Man's inventions) to the status that alchemy NOW holds in our history .. eh, FJ ?

The very concept of science didn't exist before Man thought of it. All we consider we've discovered is, absolutely so, a product of Man's capacity to hold the concepts we CAN hold.

Do fish have a concept of outer space ?

Our grasp of reality, for all you know, may be comparable to Neanderthal Man's grasp of quantum physics.

Some people like to overlook the obvious.

[Drummond]

Some people like to overlook the obvious.

Some people are incapable of doing anything else ....

[DragonStryk72]

No doubt we are in the beginning stages of understanding dark matter but all signs are it's a real thing

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

Sigh... why, pete? For the love of God, man, come to science! You just provided a Link to a point I keep making, so let's take a look at the relevant point:


An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen

Empirical data is OBSERVED data, not theorized, not using a lack of something as proof you're right. They did NOT observe dark matter, they POSIT that they observed dark matter due to a lack created in their testing. That isn't empirical data. The lack of ability to observe a thing automatically renders empirical science done.


UA Astronomers Report First Direct Evidence For Dark Matter
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/ua-astronomers-report-first-direct-evidence-for-dark-matter

How do we know Dark Matter exists?
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/

Quantum foam on a space scale is mathematical, but the existence of random emergence and annihilation of virtual particles at the quantum level is well understood especially with the Casimir effect.

Okay, I was going to do each of the articles seperately, but that's a waste of time, because they're essentially the same thing. In every instance, they are trying simply state it does exist, and then therow up a test that "proves" it exists.

Tbis, AGAIN, is the whole problem I have to begin with. More hand-waving, more assumptions as proper science. Here, you know when it's empirical? When they have DIRECTLY measured, not through a telescope from billions.of miles away, but with samples in multiple labs doing weights measures of it.

Only the first article even contained some degree of real science, and it STILL dropped the ball on empirical proof.

Again, with regards to quantum, these are all theories based off ASSUMING another theory was right, even though they had to create a fictional.to make the theory work. Quantum foam still hasn't been proven, and just because there is a force of transfer from the Casimir effect, does NOT prove anything as to there being quantum foam.

[pete311]

Wrong. It's NOTHING BUT guesswork. Theory has a meaning. It's called guesswork. Might want to find someone else to play with. There's a BIG difference between scientific theory and actual science. I think I already pointed that out about 3 pages ago.

hmmm no, you are wrong by definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[pete311]

This is ANOTHER sidestep, pete. All Laws were once theories, but theories are not LAWS. They cease being theories when the laws are proven. If you study science at all, you should know this. It's like knowing the different between the concept sketch and an actual road worthy car.

Wrong by definition
http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

[pete311]

Our grasp of reality, for all you know, may be comparable to Neanderthal Man's grasp of quantum physics.

This is reasonable. What is your point? What we know from science and math is quite a bit, or do you live in a cave somewhere?

[Gunny]

This is reasonable. What is your point? What we know from science and math is quite a bit, or do you live in a cave somewhere?

You appear to be the one living in a cave. You've presented 4 pages of speculation as fact. When it ain't. Might want to try a different argument you are more suited to ... like the Tiddly Winks Championship. You haven't done anything in this one but lose from the get go.

[pete311]

They did NOT observe dark matter, they POSIT that they observed dark matter due to a lack created in their testing. That isn't empirical data. The lack of ability to observe a thing automatically renders empirical science done.


True we have not directly "seen" dark matter. We are still figuring out how we could possibly see it. Rather we infer it's existence via it's effects on regular matter and through our equations.

Whether empirical data is required is up for debate. Here is an interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0

[pete311]

You appear to be the one living in a cave. You've presented 4 pages of speculation as fact. When it ain't. Might want to try a different argument you are more suited to ... like the Tiddly Winks Championship. You haven't done anything in this one but lose from the get go.

Gunny, you have nothing more to add. I will not respond to any more of your posts.

[Gunny]

Gunny, you have nothing more to add. I will not respond to any more of your posts.

Pete, as I have already pointed out, you had nothing to add past page one. I've presented 2 logical arguments repeatedly and you have danced around them like some break dancer on an LA street. But not addressed them. You won't respond to those posts because you can't.

And you're a pussy. Just thought I'd point that out. "I don't like your argument so I'll ignore you". Do we have a jerkoff emoticon?

[fj1200]

Hmm, I'll try to differentiate between the relevant, irrelevant, and the ignorant. :)


Indeed ? Name me a list of other species - any at all - that have any concept of science.

It'll seem about as credible as your continuing to claim you're a Thatcherite ...

A point so meaningless from you other than to validate my point. Animals do not have the ability to reason or think critically to identify what is already there.


What we consider we 'know' of science, likewise is limited to us AS A SPECIES .. and has been subject, completely, to our capacity for understanding AND categorisation. How many science devotees would've once told you that the Earth was flat ? They would've said ... open your eyes, see for yourself, the proof is right in front of you, and how crazy are you for ever doubting such proof !

Another one - that the Earth was at the very centre of creation itself ? Or another .. that alchemy was, or could be, something rooted in scientific principle ...

Perhaps all of the theories (i.e Man's inventions) about the beginning of the Universe are wrong, and nobody has yet come up with the correct version ? Which will relegate all existing theories (i.e Man's inventions) to the status that alchemy NOW holds in our history .. eh, FJ ?

The very concept of science didn't exist before Man thought of it. All we consider we've discovered is, absolutely so, a product of Man's capacity to hold the concepts we CAN hold.

Do fish have a concept of outer space ? CAN they have .. EVER ? Maybe there's an intelligence somewhere in Creation that would regard us, with total justification, as we regard our goldfish .. ?

Our grasp of reality, for all you know, may be comparable to Neanderthal Man's grasp of quantum physics.

The scientific principals didn't only begin to exist once we thought of it. The earth was always round, the sun was never the center of the universe, lead was never going to turn into gold, the boiling point of water varies depending on altitude. etc. Though I do completely agree that we may know so little of our universe compared to neanderthals but that doesn't mean the principals that govern its workings don't exist.

[Drummond]

This is reasonable. What is your point? What we know from science and math is quite a bit, or do you live in a cave somewhere?

Ahem .. my point is made. You're the one who's missed it !

I don't doubt that a goldfish is totally happy with what it understands of its reality. But what it 'knows' is a very tiny part of the totality. Try asking a goldfish about the nuclear fusion process going on in stars ....

We THINK we know 'quite a bit', but then, our concept of what that 'quite a bit' adds up to, is a product of what WE PERCEIVE. We may actually know, and probably only DO know, next to nothing.

I don't live in a cave. But how do I know, or how do you, that what you perceive as the totality of existence isn't the equivalent of some smallish pond somewhere in Florida ? We can only measure what we perceive to exist, or be true. We may be failing to perceive or measure every bit as much as a goldfish does, in failing to launch the fish equivalent of the Voyager series into the furthest reaches of our Solar System ....

[pete311]

I don't live in a cave. But how do I know, or how do you, that what you perceive as the totality of existence isn't the equivalent of some smallish pond somewhere in Florida ? We can only measure what we perceive to exist, or be true. We may be failing to perceive or measure every bit as much as a goldfish does, in failing to launch the fish equivalent of the Voyager series into the furthest reaches of our Solar System ....

Right now you've just detailed this thread into philosophy of reality. What does this have to do with the BBT? A scientific theory attempts to describe observations. We observe and now we describe. Simple as that. Your philosophy is not so relevant here however interesting for another thread.

[Gunny]

Everybody drink a beer...
:beer:

You don't want ME to drink a beer. Not good for anyone.

I just find it rather funny that anyone who can't stand being disagreed with puts people on ignore after dodging the logic for 4 pages. Pete can't be first ... He's just next. :laugh:

[Drummond]

Animals do not have the ability to reason or think critically to identify what is already there.

There may be (and I'd be willing to bet, really is ..) a species somewhere in the Universe that would assess us, by comparison to them, in very much the same way.

You have no way of showing me I'm wrong, and well you know it. The best you can do is your usual trick of quote crossings-out ...


The scientific principals didn't only begin to exist once we thought of it. The earth was always round,

... sure about that ? No possibility of its being irregularly shaped, in the earliest moment of its creation ?


the sun was never the center of the universe, lead was never going to turn into gold, the boiling point of water varies depending on altitude. etc.

... or you, ever being a genuine Conservative. OK, I get your point, thanks.


Though I do completely agree that we may know so little of our universe compared to neanderthals but that doesn't mean the principals that govern its workings don't exist.

Sure ? What if the 'principals' that 'govern its workings' only SEEM to be correct, because they conform to our observations and measurements, yet miss the truth by several light years ? We could be the equivalent, right now, of a 'scientist' who's achieved the stupendous achievement of successfully creating an accurate tape measure, accurately measuring three yards with it, then going on to extrapolate the entirety of existence from the measurement !!

The principle of the tape measure exists. What's measured with it may exist. But what's that got to do with quasars or black holes ? Or, things we have NO knowledge of, nor the inkling of a concept to so much as imagine ??

Think of it as analogous to your understanding of Conservative integrity, FJ ....

[fj1200]

Keep it on topic rather than blabbering like a trolling fool.


Sure ? What if the 'principals' that 'govern its workings' only SEEM to be correct, because they conform to our observations and measurements, yet miss the truth by several light years ?

The principals are correct. What you refer to is our perspective. Newton was correct to a point, Einstein went further.

[pete311]

Sure ? What if the 'principals' that 'govern its workings' only SEEM to be correct, because they conform to our observations and measurements, yet miss the truth by several light years ?

Pure speculative philosophy. What is your point? What if aliens make our universe and probe my body at night. You can just make up things all day long. End of the day, the science does seem correct when they describe what we observe. That is all science ever wanted to do. Now look around you and see what we've done with it. Not bad. Why tear it down now based on reality philosophy speculation?

[Drummond]

Keep it on topic rather than blabbering like a trolling fool.

You don't want to be communicated with from the use of your own language ?


The principals are correct. What you refer to is our perspective. Newton was correct to a point, Einstein went further.

Still missing the point, I think ...

Take my example of the tape measure creation, then measuring a distance with it. The 'scientist' measures what that scientist has a concept for, and a means to measure with. The 'scientist' reaches a conclusion consistent with his / her method and resulting observations.

If the 'scientist' has concepts for ONLY this, and goes on to fantasise, somehow, that the extent of his concepts and measurement all add up to a 'science' which can measure all of reality, this, FJ, is purely the imagination of the scientist at work, bearing NO relation to ACTUAL reality. You can't build a radio telescope with only a tape measure to hand. You can't take Hubble photographs with all the limitations of a tape measuring device. You can't create (or dream of wanting to) a Hadron Collider with a tape measure, or by utilising the 'science' involved in conceptualising then creating that tape measure.

My point is that the 'science' we believe in may in fact be every bit as remote from the actual scope of actual reality as the examples I've suggested, so much so, as to involve principles and concepts 100% alien to the REAL science that'd be involved. We INVENT a presupposition to the contrary and delude ourselves accordingly. Our 'science' may only SEEM to be the 'science' we think it is.

This thread has been concerned with the creation of a single Universe. What if the 'totality' discussed has as much relevance to the entirety of reality, as a cell of your body has to the rest of our galaxy ?

What we THINK we know, we 'in fact' may NOT know, and the 'knowledge' may only be, in the terms we think are true, what we've INVENTED them to be .....

[fj1200]

You don't want to be communicated with from the use of your own language ?

I don't want the board to have to suffer your incessant trolling.


Still missing the point, I think ...

Take my example of the tape measure creation, then measuring a distance with it. The 'scientist' measures what that scientist has a concept for, and a means to measure with. The 'scientist' reaches a conclusion consistent with his / her method and resulting observations.

If the 'scientist' has concepts for ONLY this, and goes on to fantasise, somehow, that the extent of his concepts and measurement all add up to a 'science' which can measure all of reality, this, FJ, is purely the imagination of the scientist at work, bearing NO relation to ACTUAL reality. You can't build a radio telescope with only a tape measure to hand. You can't take Hubble photographs with all the limitations of a tape measuring device. You can't create a Hadron collider with a tape measure, or by utilising the 'science' involved in creating that tape measure.

My point is that the 'science' we believe in may in fact be every bit as remote from the actual scope of actual reality as the examples I've suggested, so much so, as to involve principles and concepts 100% alien to the REAL science that'd be involved. We INVENT a presupposition to the contrary and delude ourselves accordingly. Our 'science' may only SEEM to be the 'science' we think it is.

This thread has been concerned with the creation of a single Universe. What if the 'totality' discussed has as much relevance to the entirety of reality, as a cell of your body has to the rest of our galaxy ?

What we THINK we know, we 'in fact' may NOT know, and the 'knowledge' may only be, in the terms we think are true, what we've INVENTED them to be .....

I'm not missing your point at all; yours is a limiting viewpoint. Man didn't create the concept of one apple vs. two apples, he merely came up with a way to count. Man didn't create science, he merely came up with the scientific method by which to study it. If man is wrong about a theory then there is a framework for correction.

[Drummond]

I don't want the board to have to suffer your incessant trolling.

You just prefer it to suffer yours, eh ... ?


I'm not missing your point at all; yours is a limiting viewpoint. Man didn't create the concept of one apple vs. two apples,

Not even after several pints of an especially intoxicating beverage ?:laugh:


he merely came up with a way to count.

Man came up with a way (??) to measure something that may be completely removed from what he SHOULD have been measuring, because he'd invented a concept of what needed to be measured which didn't apply to the totality (... in my example). The validity of thought process involved is therefore nullified, the delusion that it be accurately measuring what is INTENDED may be pure invention.


Man didn't create science, he merely came up with the scientific method by which to study it.

If I am actually right, he created something having zero relevance to the actual means of understanding really called for.


If man is wrong about a theory then there is a framework for correction.

Tell a steamship engineer to construct a framework for correction which involves the invention of faster-than-light travel ....

[Gunny]

Y'all are like an old married couple. You fuss more than my grandparents did. :laugh:

[Drummond]

Y'all are like an old married couple. You fuss more than my grandparents did. :laugh:

No disrespect to your grandparents, but I've often thought that FJ would benefit from using an ear trumpet ... maybe he'd finally get to comprehend a thing or 2 .. ?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8054&stc=1

[Perianne]

This might be the worst long thread ever. Can't we talk about the origin of designer shoes instead of this stuff?

[Black Diamond]

This might be the worst long thread ever. Can't we talk about the origin of designer shoes instead of this stuff?

People think it's more fun to "disprove" God's existence.

[Perianne]

People think it's more fun to "disprove" God's existence.

For what it's worth, I don't care how the universe came about. I believe God made it and I don't have to have it proven to me. I accept it on faith. I am not going to argue about it. If someone doesn't believe in God they can kiss my foot.

[pete311]

People think it's more fun to "disprove" God's existence.

BBT has nothing to do with God. For some reason people think it does. We might as well be talking about how my spicy salsa disproves God's existance.

[Drummond]

For what it's worth, I don't care how the universe came about. I believe God made it and I don't have to have it proven to me. I accept it on faith. I am not going to argue about it. If someone doesn't believe in God they can kiss my foot.

I accept it partly as a matter of faith, also partly because nothing else is logical to me. Since so much in the Universe screams 'design' to me, there MUST therefore be a designer !! No conceivable entity other than a God could possibly have been responsible.

[Drummond]

BBT has nothing to do with God. For some reason people think it does. We might as well be talking about how my spicy salsa disproves God's existance.

Hah ! Your spicy salsa may well be the Devil's work. And if there's a Devil .. then, there's also a God !!

Try again ... :laugh2:

[Black Diamond]

Hah ! Your spicy salsa may well be the Devil's work. And if there's a Devil .. then, there's also a God !!

Try again ... :laugh2:

This is hilarious, Mr Drummond. I went to a Mexican restaurant the other night. I said give me the most spicy dish you have. They brought me "chicken diablo".

[Gunny]

This might be the worst long thread ever. Can't we talk about the origin of designer shoes instead of this stuff?

We're not girls. Who cares about designer shoes when we can talk about FJ's haircut?

[Drummond]

This is hilarious, Mr Drummond. I went to a Mexican restaurant the other night. I said give me the most spicy dish you have. They brought me "chicken diablo".:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Drummond]

We're not girls. Who cares about designer shoes when we can talk about FJ's haircut?

.. and his choice of ear trumpet .....

[pete311]

I accept it partly as a matter of faith, also partly because nothing else is logical to me. Since so much in the Universe screams 'design' to me, there MUST therefore be a designer !! No conceivable entity other than a God could possibly have been responsible.

This thread is about the BBT, not about God.

[Drummond]

This thread is about the BBT, not about God.

What if the two are indivisible (... but, because we're so lacking in knowledge or understanding, we just can't see it ?).

What if the ONLY way to EVER explain the creation of a 'Big Bang' as the starting-point of our Universe, is to accept, once and for all, that God set it into motion ?

Or, what if greater realities are in play, and the Universe's place in them must of itself presuppose God's existence ?

[pete311]

What if the two are indivisible (... but, because we're so lacking in knowledge or understanding, we just can't see it ?).

What if the ONLY way to EVER explain the creation of a 'Big Bang' as the starting-point of our Universe, is to accept, once and for all, that God set it into motion ?

Or, what if greater realities are in play, and the Universe's place in them must of itself presuppose God's existence ?

What if, what if, what if, what if.

[Black Diamond]

This thread is about the BBT, not about God.

Beginning of Genesis is in violation of big bang theory. There. It's about God now.

[pete311]

The fact is that the big bang theory has been very successful. There are some holes to be worked out, but it explains an awful lot. Throwing that in the trash just because of some "what ifs" and replacing it all with. "Well, it's God's will" it totally stupid and we've never technologically advance.

[pete311]

Beginning of Genesis is in violation of big bang theory. There. It's about God now.

I'm not going to address is idiocy.

[Black Diamond]

The fact is that the big bang theory has been very successful. There are some holes to be worked out, but it explains an awful lot. Throwing that in the trash just because of some "what ifs" and replacing it all with. "Well, it's God's will" it totally stupid and we've never technologically advance.
It would be stupid to do those things. Luckily no one here has done them.

[pete311]

You guys are not reaching deep into your pockets and bringing out complete garbage. I mean this is real juvenile stuff now.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not going to address is idiocy.

Good. Then you don't have to address your salsa comment or half your other posts.

[Black Diamond]

You guys are not reaching deep into your pockets and bringing out complete garbage. I mean this is real juvenile stuff now.

You apparently had salsa in your pockets.

[Perianne]

You apparently had salsa in your pockets.

Men are always hot in their pants...or they think they are. Many of them have small peppers. :laugh:




Another funny by Perianne!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

BBT has nothing to do with God. For some reason people think it does. We might as well be talking about how my spicy salsa disproves God's existance.


BBT has nothing to do with God.

Utter rot, scientists and teachers have for over 4 decades taught that God did not make the universe and the example they gave was the Big Bang Theory!

So yes, it has a lot to do with God as it was then and is now still used to refute God's word in the bible.
That you deny that reality points to something very suspicious to me .

Are you Gnosticbishop , the member that posts insane threads??-Tyr

[Black Diamond]

Utter rot, scientists and teachers have for over 4 decades taught that God did not make the universe and the example they gave was the Big Bang Theory!

So yes, it has a lot to do with God as it was then and is now still used to refute God's word in the bible.
That you deny that reality points to something very suspicious to me .

Are you Gnosticbishop , the member that posts insane threads??-Tyr
Well said, Tyr.

[pete311]

Utter rot, scientists and teachers have for over 4 decades taught that God did not make the universe and the example they gave was the Big Bang Theory!

So yes, it has a lot to do with God as it was then and is now still used to refute God's word in the bible.
That you deny that reality points to something very suspicious to me .

Are you Gnosticbishop , the member that posts insane threads??-Tyr

These are not the theory's fault. In no scientific paper does it say anything about God. If teachers use it for an agenda that is their fault. Just like how guns don't kill people. Right?

[Drummond]

The fact is that the big bang theory has been very successful.

So were the Harry Potter books. Can we all start believing in witchcraft ?


There are some holes to be worked out, but it explains an awful lot. Throwing that in the trash just because of some "what ifs" and replacing it all with. "Well, it's God's will" it totally stupid and we've never technologically advance.

Well ... 'what ifs' are (or can be) an excellent basis for creating theories ! You should welcome them.

And those 'holes' could be highly critical ones. If a theory does NOT fit the known facts, this can mean ..

1. We don't have all the facts, &/ or ..

2. The theory just doesn't work. It needs to be rethought.

Perhaps one massive hole - even if not a black one - is to remove God from the equation .. ?

But Pete, tell me. Why do you so strongly deny the inclusion of God's will in your thinking ? From what CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE do you choose to do this ? Any at all ?

Or are you letting preference get in the way of scientific objectivity ?

[Drummond]

I'm not going to address is idiocy.

Sheer bias. Zero objectivity. If you're objective, you should be open to all possibilities, until those possibilities are disproven.

You clearly aren't applying 'scientific method'.

[Drummond]

These are not the theory's fault. In no scientific paper does it say anything about God. If teachers use it for an agenda that is their fault. Just like how guns don't kill people. Right?

Well, now. How's THAT for a massive dose of bias ??

I thought scientific method (in so far as anyone can competently apply it) was open to all possibilities, UNTIL DISproven .. ?

Perhaps what you call 'an agenda', is simply a display of comparative open-mindedness ... an open-mindedness to an alternative which closed minds just choose to summarily reject out of hand ?

Reminds me of the 'flat earth' days. How closed-minded were people back then to any possibility that it WASN'T ?

But never mind. We progressed beyond such primitive times, Pete.

[Drummond]

Utter rot, scientists and teachers have for over 4 decades taught that God did not make the universe and the example they gave was the Big Bang Theory!

So yes, it has a lot to do with God as it was then and is now still used to refute God's word in the bible.
That you deny that reality points to something very suspicious to me .

Are you Gnosticbishop , the member that posts insane threads??-Tyr

I've never really seen that one excludes the other. Why couldn't God have created the Universe in that way ?

God can do anything.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've never really seen that one excludes the other. Why couldn't God have created the Universe in that way ?

God can do anything.

He could have since he can do anything, but the theory never mentions God and thats why it was created..
To deny God.
Pete just wants to ignore that fact and thus not admit it had a primary purpose- that is and always was to "Lord science' over God. -Tyr

[pete311]

Well ... 'what ifs' are (or can be) an excellent basis for creating theories ! You should welcome them.


This is preciously the reverse of how it actually works. A theory attempts to describe an observation. You don't think of "what ifs" and then try to prove them. Another novice misconception.

[pete311]

Sheer bias. Zero objectivity. If you're objective, you should be open to all possibilities, until those possibilities are disproven.

You clearly aren't applying 'scientific method'.

None of your speculative statements are a hypothesis. Do you even know what the scientific method is?

[pete311]

Well, now. How's THAT for a massive dose of bias ??

I thought scientific method (in so far as anyone can competently apply it) was open to all possibilities, UNTIL DISproven .. ?

God is outside science. There is no way to research the concept. Thus, the big bang theory's goal has nothing to do with God, but just the process of how the universe has changed.

[pete311]

He could have since he can do anything, but the theory never mentions God and thats why it was created..
To deny God.
Pete just wants to ignore that fact and thus not admit it had a primary purpose- that is and always was to "Lord science' over God. -Tyr

Are you upset that the theories of electromagnetism didn't include God? How exactly would you scientifically research God. Please tell me. What experiments would you do?

It seems like you're just trying to say everything should include God. Why does your username not include a reference to God. Why are you denying him. Obviously you have an agenda against him because you didn't include him in your name.

[pete311]

I see now that your name is actually a viking God. How nicely heathen of you.

[pete311]

He could have since he can do anything, but the theory never mentions God and thats why it was created..

Furthermore he's not mentioned, because there is no evidence found. Should there be a little footnote at the end of the paper "*no evidence for God found while studying the Big Bang processes"

[revelarts]

The fact is that the big bang theory has been very successful. There are some holes to be worked out, but it explains an awful lot. Throwing that in the trash just because of some "what ifs" and replacing it all with. "Well, it's God's will" it totally stupid and we've never technologically advance.

The big Bang has had a run at the front spot because of a few observations that seemed to align with it back 30-40 years ago. But further research is causing those things that gave it a leg up to fall away. "red shift" data for example..

but here's the thing about your assertion that bugs me.
why do have to have to cling a KNOWN bad or spotty answer?

why don't you --and others that have such a high view of science--- just say something like.
"Many scientist THINK this MAY what happened but it doesn't quite fit all the data. So truth be told WE JUST DON'T KNOW for sure. There are others option, but many scientist and others like this theory best right now because.... However we're open to exploring ALL options that align with the observations the best. Because the facts is what we all want."

Rather than defending one theory as if science and rational life itself will be destroyed if it's questioned or set aside.
I can understand a working scientist who's spent decades basing all his work on it clinging to it for dear life but those not so wedded have an option of looking elsewhere without career or mental consequences.

As far as replacing it goes. well that's another issue.
It's man's idea that we will be able to find natural causes for all processes... one day, but that's really just a "belief" it's not proven. So to claim that there is no supernatural source is arrogance and blind faith. But on the other hand to shoehorn God in prematurely is a mistake as well.
I always admit that i believe God created it all. But how many steps back we go in natural causations before we hit the wall of the hand of God is the question for me. However It seems to me we're getting closer to it. In biology i think we're about there.
the chicken and the egg problems are obvious to those honest enough to look. There's no natural causal bridge to cover that span.
You must have DNA to make DNA. so how did it get here? there's ZERO way to begin to explain or imagine a natural chemical process to get there.
ZERO.
chemicals final break down or only org in simple patterns in ALL situations without specific codes to tell it otherwise they never form complex proteins, or DNA or RNA. never in any natural setting. period.

the Universe being here presents it's own problems pre science. "why is there ANYTHING, instead of nothing?"
After that hurdle then OK it's here, so has it been here always? how could we tell if it were? seriously? how would you conclusively measure eternity past? entropy says it won't be in this form for ever. Is it just an accident we're here to see it at all? really? Are you absolutely sure ?

[pete311]

The big Bang has had a run at the front spot because of a few observations that seemed to align with it back 30-40 years ago. But further research is causing those things that gave it a leg up to fall away. "red shift" data for example..

but here's the thing about your assertion that bugs me.
why do have to have to cling a KNOWN bad or spotty answer?

why don't you --and others that have such a high view of science--- just say something like.
"Many scientist THINK this MAY what happened but it doesn't quite fit all the data. So truth be told WE JUST DON'T KNOW for sure. There are others option, but many scientist and others like this theory best right now because.... However we're open to exploring ALL options that align with the observations the best. Because the facts is what we all want."

Rather than defending one theory as if science and rational life itself will be destroyed if it's questioned or set aside.
I can understand a working scientist who's spent decades basing all his work on it clinging to it for dear life but those not so wedded have an option of looking elsewhere without career or mental consequences.


This is what happens when the other side you are debating goes extreme, it ends up making you go extreme on your side in an attempt to balance them out a bit. What you are saying here is what I think and is responsible. Yes we don't have all the data. Yes, there are holes. Yes, there could come something along that smashes it apart. I've said in a previous poll that I'd not argue it. I'd welcome and be amazed by it. I follow the science wherever it takes us. However, at the big bang theory is still vastly accepted because it has successfully described what we observe. Until something comes along that can falsify it, it's the best we have so far.

[pete311]

As far as replacing it goes. well that's another issue.
It's man's idea that we will be able to find natural causes for all processes... one day, but that's really just a "belief" it's not proven. So to claim that there is no supernatural source is arrogance and blind faith. But on the other hand to shoehorn God in prematurely is a mistake as well.
I always admit that i believe God created it all. But how many steps back we go in natural causations before we hit the wall of the hand of God is the question for me. However It seems to me we're getting closer to it. In biology i think we're about there.
the chicken and the egg problems are obvious to those honest enough to look. There's no natural causal bridge to cover that span.
You must have DNA to make DNA. so how did it get here? there's ZERO way to begin to explain or imagine a natural chemical process to get there.
ZERO.
chemicals final break down or only org in simple patterns in ALL situations without specific codes to tell it otherwise they never form complex proteins, or DNA or RNA. never in any natural setting. period.


Ah you were almost making some sense there for a bit. Biology science is only just scratching the surface. Speed up 100 years and you'd likely be flabbergasted at what we have learned. Look at history. There is only a massive increase in science discovery. There may be a wall, but it's not even close to being hit. Your DNA comments are for another thread, but there are great advances in that field. It's only a matter of time. Again, just because you don't know, what do you give up and turn to God. Just say, I don't know, let's figure it out. Otherwise we are just cavemen. Why even try to figure out fire. Too mystical. Doesn't make sense.

[Abbey Marie]

Ah you were almost making some sense there for a bit. Biology science is only just scratching the surface. Speed up 100 years and you'd likely be flabbergasted at what we have learned. Look at history. There is only a massive increase in science discovery. There may be a wall, but it's not even close to being hit. Your DNA comments are for another thread, but there are great advances in that field. It's only a matter of time. Again, just because you don't know, what do you give up and turn to God. Just say, I don't know, let's figure it out. Otherwise we are just cavemen. Why even try to figure out fire. Too mystical. Doesn't make sense.


I don't know anyone who turned to God because they'd given up on science. I think you have that backwards.



<tbody>

John 20:29 (NIV) (http://biblehub.com/niv/john/20.htm)
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


</tbody>

[pete311]

I don't know anyone who turned to God because they'd given up on science. I think you have that backwards.

No, I've heard it several times here. Someone doesn't understand how something works. Then it must be God.

[Russ]

No, I've heard it several times here. Someone doesn't understand how something works. Then it must be God.


Pete311: "People credit God for things whenever they're just not sure how those things work. I'm much smarter than that. I understand the laws of physics, and I know that everything has to abide by those laws. That's why I'm so sure about the Big Bang Theory."

Other board-member: "Okay, I'll bite. How does the Big Bang Theory work?"

Pete311: "I'm not really sure how it works, because it doesn't abide by the laws of physics."

[pete311]

Pete311: "People credit God for things whenever they're just not sure how those things work. I'm much smarter than that. I understand the laws of physics, and I know that everything has to abide by those laws. That's why I'm so sure about the Big Bang Theory."

Other board-member: "Okay, I'll bite. How does the Big Bang Theory work?"

Pete311: "I'm not really sure how it works, because it doesn't abide by the laws of physics."

Well, you stumped me. No idea what this is about.

[revelarts]

Ah you were almost making some sense there for a bit. Biology science is only just scratching the surface. Speed up 100 years and you'd likely be flabbergasted at what we have learned. Look at history. There is only a massive increase in science discovery. There may be a wall, but it's not even close to being hit. Your DNA comments are for another thread, but there are great advances in that field. It's only a matter of time. Again, just because you don't know, what do you give up and turn to God. Just say, I don't know, let's figure it out. Otherwise we are just cavemen. Why even try to figure out fire. Too mystical. Doesn't make sense.

faith in science discovery is ok i guess.
but here's the thing. Is Chemistry going to change? Is entropy going to change. unless the laws of nature change. the chicken and egg question stands as a wall to "nature" Pete.

fire is a chemical reaction that follows those principals ...down hill. Biology follows another set of principals.. UP HILL based on information systems. Similar to what you've mentioned about the big bang NOT explaining how thing got here at 1st or before. there's NO possible chemical processes observed, or created experimentally that gives rise to the information needed to maintain life. the information has no natural source. it's just here.
The wall is the same kind of wall, an a unique unknown that's leaves us with a not just a puzzle to figure out one day maybe like earthquakes or weather, but a paradox that has no natural source or answer.

[pete311]

faith in science discover is ok i guess.
but here's the thing. Is Chemistry going to change? Is entropy going to change. unless the laws of nature change. the chicken and egg question stands as a wall to "nature" Pete.

fire is a chemical reaction that follow those principals ...down hill. Biology follows another set of principals.. UP HILL based on information systems. Similar to what you've mentioned about the big bang NOT explaining how thing got here at 1st or before. there's NO possible chemical processes observed, or created experimentally that gives rise to the information needed to maintain life. the information has no natural source. it's just here.
The wall is the same kind of wall, an a unique unknown that's leaves us with a not just a puzzle to figure out one day maybe like earthquakes or weather, but a paradox that has no natural source or answer.

I don't believe nature has any true paradox. It works a certain way. Like reverse engineering an engine. The mechanisms can be uncovered. Especially with nature because are live with it. To know the true nature of reality could be beyond us I admit. There are lots of questions, lots of things we don't know. But we are making progress.

ugh I do not want to get this thread completely derailed but what the heck

"According to evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, Richard Dawkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), the question is moot.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-11) In his book, The Magic of Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_of_Reality), Dawkins discusses the origins of humanity, and presumably any other species, in a chapter titled "Who was the First Person". When addressing the question he writes that "there never was a first person -- because every person had to have parents, and those parents had to be people too!"[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-12) By this logic then there never was a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg.In order to explain this mind boggling concept, Dawkins employs a thought experiment where you start with a picture of yourself and stack a photo of your father on top of your photo. He says to consider continuing this process indefinitely, or until you finally encounter the common ancestor of all life on Earth. Now that you have this incredible genealogical record of yourself, or a chicken, begin pulling out pictures from the stack. Dawkins says that at each generation the immediately preceding photographs will look only slightly different from the generation before or after, not distinguishable as separate species from their forbears. In other words, no matter where you decide to pull a photo from your stack of ancestors he will definitely be recognizable as the parents of the generation after himself, and a child of his parents' generation. But take photos from thousands of generations apart and the ancestor will be nearly unrecognizable from their eventual progeny.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-13) In the same way that there was never a first human, there was never a first chicken. Therefore, the chicken and egg both preceded one another or the question is invalid to begin with."

Here is some information on the origin of DNA replication
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/09/-origins-of-dna-shows-how-life-could-have-evolved-on-early-earth-or-alien-planets.html

Before I get jumped on. Of course nothing is conclusive and we have a long long way to go. My point is that you could be holding on to false conclusions and paradoxes. Scientists a 100 years ago knowing what we know today would fall over and faint. I think the same thing would happen today if we suddenly advance science 100 years.

[Gunny]

I don't believe nature has any true paradox. It works a certain way. Like reverse engineering an engine. The mechanisms can be uncovered. Especially with nature because are live with it. To know the true nature of reality could be beyond us I admit. There are lots of questions, lots of things we don't know. But we are making progress.

ugh I do not want to get this thread completely derailed but what the heck

"According to evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, Richard Dawkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), the question is moot.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-11) In his book, The Magic of Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_of_Reality), Dawkins discusses the origins of humanity, and presumably any other species, in a chapter titled "Who was the First Person". When addressing the question he writes that "there never was a first person -- because every person had to have parents, and those parents had to be people too!"[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-12) By this logic then there never was a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg.In order to explain this mind boggling concept, Dawkins employs a thought experiment where you start with a picture of yourself and stack a photo of your father on top of your photo. He says to consider continuing this process indefinitely, or until you finally encounter the common ancestor of all life on Earth. Now that you have this incredible genealogical record of yourself, or a chicken, begin pulling out pictures from the stack. Dawkins says that at each generation the immediately preceding photographs will look only slightly different from the generation before or after, not distinguishable as separate species from their forbears. In other words, no matter where you decide to pull a photo from your stack of ancestors he will definitely be recognizable as the parents of the generation after himself, and a child of his parents' generation. But take photos from thousands of generations apart and the ancestor will be nearly unrecognizable from their eventual progeny.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-13) In the same way that there was never a first human, there was never a first chicken. Therefore, the chicken and egg both preceded one another or the question is invalid to begin with."

Here is some information on the origin of DNA replication
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/09/-origins-of-dna-shows-how-life-could-have-evolved-on-early-earth-or-alien-planets.html

Before I get jumped on. Of course nothing is conclusive and we have a long long way to go. My point is that you could be holding on to false conclusions and paradoxes. Scientists a 100 years ago knowing what we know today would fall over and faint. I think the same thing would happen today if we suddenly advance science 100 years.

And my point to YOU for 6 pages is you CANNOT explain the unexplainable. That simple little concept doesn't seem to get through to your brain housing group.

[fj1200]

You just prefer it to suffer yours, eh ... ?

Not even after several pints of an especially intoxicating beverage ?

Man came up with a way (??) to measure something that may be completely removed from what he SHOULD have been measuring, because he'd invented a concept of what needed to be measured which didn't apply to the totality (... in my example). The validity of thought process involved is therefore nullified, the delusion that it be accurately measuring what is INTENDED may be pure invention.

Man came up with numbers. He didn't come up with the fact that things can be numbered.


If I am actually right, he created something having zero relevance to the actual means of understanding really called for.

You're not actually correct. Man didn't event the rules by which the universe works.


Tell a steamship engineer to construct a framework for correction which involves the invention of faster-than-light travel ....

Why?


:420:

Reading involves glasses. The requirement for your logic to be correct involves a bong.

[pete311]

Bringing things back. There was an alternative to BBT called steady state. Here is a nice FAQ on why it's no longer viable.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/steady-state-model-no-longer-viable/

[fj1200]

FJ's haircut?

Is awesome.


Beginning of Genesis is in violation of big bang theory. There. It's about God now.

No it's not. Biologos (http://biologos.org/).

[pete311]

And my point to YOU for 6 pages is you CANNOT explain the unexplainable. That simple little concept doesn't seem to get through to your brain housing group.

First off what EXACTLY do you find explainable?

[revelarts]

I don't believe nature has any true paradox. It works a certain way. Like reverse engineering an engine. The mechanisms can be uncovered. Especially with nature because are live with it. To know the true nature of reality could be beyond us I admit. There are lots of questions, lots of things we don't know. But we are making progress.
"the true nature of reality could be beyond us"
Agreed.

But it seems you just avoid acknowledging the paradoxes.
you say it's like "reverse engineering an engine". Well Ok those terms are loaded. Reverse engineer implies it was engineered in the 1st place. Engineered by who? Also you ASUMME the engines existence. Ok where'd it come from? Where did the matter come from to form it?
At some point in science we'd come to an uncaused cause or find/assume infinite causation. Either way, THAT is a paradox.

[Gunny]

"the true nature of reality could be beyond us"
Agreed.

But it seems you just avoid acknowledging the paradoxes.
you say it's like "reverse engineering an engine". Well Ok those terms are loaded. Reverse engineer implies it was engineered in the 1st place. Engineered by who? Also you ASUMME the engines existence. Ok where'd it come from? Where did the matter come from to form it?
At some point in science we'd come to an uncaused cause or find/assume infinite causation. Either way, THAT is a paradox.

He's avoided ANY and ALL straight answers. Be careful though. If you keep thoroughly hammering his argument he will just start ignoring you. :laugh: Seems to me anyone so steadfast in his beliefs would be willing to defend them rather than run and hide.

[pete311]

"the true nature of reality could be beyond us"
Agreed.

But it seems you just avoid acknowledging the paradoxes.
you say it's like "reverse engineering an engine". Well Ok those terms are loaded. Reverse engineer implies it was engineered in the 1st place. Engineered by who? Also you ASUMME the engines existence. Ok where'd it come from? Where did the matter come from to form it?
At some point in science we'd come to an uncaused cause or find/assume infinite causation. Either way, THAT is a paradox.

Not who but what. Nature itself is a builder. Where the matter came from is exactly what the BBT is about. How matter came to be in the first place is where science ends at the moment and currently does not attempt to describe, at least with BBT.

[Gunny]

Not who but what. Nature itself is a builder. Where the matter came from is exactly what the BBT is about. How matter came to be in the first place is where science ends at the moment and currently does not attempt to describe, at least with BBT.

Ridiculous statement. Nature itself is a builder. Of WHAT? Where'd "nature" come from? Life didn't invent itself regardless all your "theory".

[fj1200]

Nature itself is a builder.

Yes.


Jewish Publication Society (3rd ed.) When God began to create heaven and Earth"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/crebegin.htm

"Created and is creating."

:)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see now that your name is actually a viking God. How nicely heathen of you.
Yes, from my Viking heritage-- I am human and have ancestors that I know about and do not deny. Do you?
Was I supposed to use Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh, Theos, Kurios and Pateras, El-Shaddai or
Zeus, Cronus, Odin, etc, etc..????-Tyr

[Gunny]

Yes, from my Viking heritage-- I am human and have ancestors that I know about and do not deny. Do you?
Was I supposed to use Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh, Theos, Kurios and Pateras, El-Shaddai or
Zeus, Cronus, Odin, etc, etc..????-Tyr

I'm going with Crom. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm going with Crom. :)

Arnold went with Crom too. And that huge broadsword to cut anything down to size. :beer:-Tyr

[Gunny]

Arnold went with Crom too. And that huge broadsword to cut anything down to size. :beer:-Tyr

I read the books long before the movie came out. Robert E Howard wrote them. When he killed himself, some other dude wrote several of them. He was from Cross Plains, Texas. THAT explains why he killed himself. :laugh:

[Russ]

Not who but what. Nature itself is a builder. Where the matter came from is exactly what the BBT is about. How matter came to be in the first place is where science ends at the moment and currently does not attempt to describe, at least with BBT.

I find it ironic how BBT'ers are skeered to say that God built anything, but are very comfortable saying: a) Nature built everything, or b) Random Chance built everything.

By the way, I could have guessed about 15 pages ago that you're a fan of Dawkins. Its strange though, that you can scoff at excellent arguments being made by Rev, Tyr, Drummond, and Gunny, but you're totally down with Dawkins and his unconvincing pile of photographs.

[Russ]

Pete311 - by the way, isn't your Dawkins-photograph story pretty analogous to the "solid state" universe theory, the same theory you chortled at about 6 posts ago?

[Gunny]

Pete311 - by the way, isn't your Dawkins-photograph story pretty analogous to the "solid state" universe theory, the same theory you chortled at about 6 posts ago?


:bang3:

[Russ]

The requirement for your logic to be correct involves a bong.

Ha! I often don't agree with you, FJ, but that is a great line. I might have to steal it for use during the proper moment in an upcoming team meeting at work. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ha! I often don't agree with you, FJ,

Fixed that for ya my friend..... ;)
Don't want ya to wander too far off the righteous path. - ;) --Tyr

[revelarts]

...

"According to evolutionary biologist and popular science writer, Richard Dawkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins), the question is moot.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-11) In his book, The Magic of Reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_of_Reality), Dawkins discusses the origins of humanity, and presumably any other species, in a chapter titled "Who was the First Person". When addressing the question he writes that "there never was a first person -- because every person had to have parents, and those parents had to be people too!"[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-12) By this logic then there never was a proto-chicken that laid the first chicken egg.In order to explain this mind boggling concept, Dawkins employs a thought experiment where you start with a picture of yourself and stack a photo of your father on top of your photo. He says to consider continuing this process indefinitely, or until you finally encounter the common ancestor of all life on Earth. Now that you have this incredible genealogical record of yourself, or a chicken, begin pulling out pictures from the stack. Dawkins says that at each generation the immediately preceding photographs will look only slightly different from the generation before or after, not distinguishable as separate species from their forbears. In other words, no matter where you decide to pull a photo from your stack of ancestors he will definitely be recognizable as the parents of the generation after himself, and a child of his parents' generation. But take photos from thousands of generations apart and the ancestor will be nearly unrecognizable from their eventual progeny.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#cite_note-13) In the same way that there was never a first human, there was never a first chicken. Therefore, the chicken and egg both preceded one another or the question is invalid to begin with."

Here is some information on the origin of DNA replication
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/09/-origins-of-dna-shows-how-life-could-have-evolved-on-early-earth-or-alien-planets.html

Before I get jumped on. Of course nothing is conclusive and we have a long long way to go....
the thing about Dawkins "stack of photos" is that it's mythical.
It's assumed, there's no hard evidence to back it up just conjecture and changeable guesses at even relatives and "transitions".

“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Charles Darwin
comments on the fossil record's LACK of transitional forms

[pete311]

the thing about Dawkins "stack of photos" is that it's mythical.

You want to know what is mythical... the damn bible. But anyway, this thread has gone off the deep end. Say you won, I don't care. I've wasted so much time. I'm out. See ya next time.

[Abbey Marie]

You want to know what is mythical... the damn bible. But anyway, this thread has gone off the deep end. Say you won, I don't care. I've wasted so much time. I'm out. See ya next time.

The "Damn Bible"? Tsk tsk

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The "Damn Bible"? Tsk tsk

YEP, PETE-- AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN ATTEMPTING TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE BBT,
while denying that it was created to deny that God created the universe.
And do so while even more scientists are publicly admitting that the universe is -designed by a creator--not mere happenstance...-Tyr

[Russ]

Say you won, I don't care.

We won.

[Gunny]

We won.

The loser to say "I don't care" is usually the first loser. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We won.

We did win and it was easy. Science is itself now proving that their is far too much "order" in this universe for it not to be a "design" itself. That mere "happenstance" exploding could never produce such precision and design.
I never got to that point with our little Petey as he raced off to lick his wounds too fast. :laugh:
And I didn't even start to strain myself, in my brief little go at his idiocy.--Tyr

[Drummond]

We did win and it was easy. Science is itself now proving that their is far too much "order" in this universe for it not to be a "design" itself. That mere "happenstance" exploding could never produce such precision and design.
I never got to that point with our little Petey as he raced off to lick his wounds too fast. :laugh:
And I didn't even start to strain myself, in my brief little go at his idiocy.--Tyr

I already put the case of 'design' to him. He had no real answer to offer to it. The best he got to trying to refute it was to suggest that a supposedly '99.9% empty' Universe spoke of poor design ... except, of course, this failed to reasonably take into account either Dark Matter, or worse, Dark Energy, both of which are considered to make up most of the Universe, but neither of which can we directly observe.

Not that it's important, either way. Since we're not God, we cannot have His insight into what does or does not constitute good design. Although I daresay that Lefties are arrogant enough to believe that they are the ultimate arbiters of such things .... :laugh:

[fj1200]

I already put the case of 'design' to him.

There is no case of design in a science question. You can choose to believe it outside the question of what happened.

[revelarts]

There is no case of design in a science question. You can choose to believe it outside the question of what happened.
FJ, there is a case for it, most clearly from 2 scientific povs

From the cosmic scientific POV of why the universe is "fined tuned" for life has been admitted and baffling. the 2 possible solutions are one a multi-verse which does not add up to the known science
or 2 DESIGN by a mind of some sort.

the other is biologically.
where again you have a chicken and scenario. where the INFORMATION embedded in DNA and RNA had to be there 1st to get the processes going. there's ZERO stairwell to get there. you don't accidentally fall uphill while playing mozart on a banjo.
Darwin even admits this.
And more importantly the ONLY source we EVER evidently see in the universe for complex information systems that read and write language is from a MIND. then the clear scientific conclusion is BIOLOGY is based on design.


the ONLY thing that keeps people from the obvious is the fear of admitting God.

[fj1200]

FJ, there is a case for it, most clearly from 2 scientific povs

We've had this discussion before. I don't believe you can write a test for ID. Creation is a matter of faith.

[revelarts]

We've had this discussion before. I don't believe you can write a test for ID. ...

It's already written.
The SETI project scans waves from space looking for patterns that are not random but go beyond simple repetition and form codes. Based on that if they receive a complex coded message then that is the indication of intelligent life.
Coded messages are not natural, by default they have an intelligent source.

[fj1200]

It's already written.
The SETI project scans waves from space looking for patterns that are not random but go beyond simple repetition and form codes. Based on that if they receive a complex coded message then that is the indication of intelligent life.
Coded messages are not natural, by default they have an intelligent source.

That would be a test for intelligent life/design in the universe, it wouldn't be a test for intelligent design of the universe.

[revelarts]

That would be a test for intelligent life/design in the universe, it wouldn't be a test for intelligent design of the universe.

sure it is FJ,
"in" or "of" the Code test applies.

a the coded message by a character in a book,
And code of the printed letters of the page of the book. both are clear evidence of intelligence.

[fj1200]

sure it is FJ,
"in" or "of" the Code test applies.

a the coded message by a character in a book,
And code of the printed letters of the page of the book. both are clear evidence of intelligence.

Intelligence is not the question. Design is the question.

[Drummond]

Intelligence is not the question. Design is the question.

The two are indivisible, though. An intelligent mind must be involved in design. Accept the existence of design, it's only logical to automatically accept that an intelligence is, must be, at work.

A big problem that disbelievers in God have is that they also have to refute any possibility of design in the Universe .. when everything around them positively screams 'DESIGN'.

[revelarts]

Intelligence is not the question. Design is the question.
the source of ALL the codes we SEE are intelligent designers. ALL.
the codes are designs not mathematical, chemical and physics leaping accidents.

[fj1200]

The two are indivisible, though. An intelligent mind must be involved in design. Accept the existence of design, it's only logical to automatically accept that an intelligence is, must be, at work.

A big problem that disbelievers in God have is that they also have to refute any possibility of design in the Universe .. when everything around them positively screams 'DESIGN'.


the source of ALL the codes we SEE are intelligent designers. ALL.
the codes are designs not mathematical, chemical and physics leaping accidents.

To both; that is opinion. I may happen to agree but design is not a question of science IMO.

[revelarts]

To both; that is opinion. I may happen to agree but design is not a question of science IMO.
No, those are logical conclusions based on scientific evidence.

Good science makes conclusions based on the evidence, it's only supposed to change when new evidence piles up in another area to make another conclusion MORE likely.
In this case YOU are -a priori- using faith to assume there's materialist only conclusion based on YET to be found evidence to explain it what appears to be designed.
Your assuming materialism = science instead of assuming science = finding WHATEVER the facts are.
the thing is the SCINCE TODAY leads to the conclusion of DESIGN and DESIGNER. miraculous accidents have hit scientific and logical brick walls.

It's like someone who lives on an island with 4 known people left and they've decided that ALL deaths going forward are ONLY by accident or natural causes. But they find someone dead and the other 3 were together during the time death, but the death doesn't look like and accident. There are stab wounds in the back, writing on the body, the body dressed in cloths no one on the island can make or has ever seen, and the body put into an upright position in a chair on the roof of a house.

Sure there MAY be a way to find out how it all happened by accident or natural causes ONE DAY, but is that the BEST or an honest answer?
If one wants to cling to the idea that one of the remaining 3 did it even though there's NO WAY anyone could have because there was no time, they don't have the strength, the tools, the writing pens, inks or the motives. If they still want to cling to the idea that there's NO ONE else on the island they can. but it's AGAINST the available evidence. This death doesn't add up to accident it adds up to murder.
It's not "just opinion." It looks like someone else is on the island.

In a murder case if the evidence leads to ONE suspect it doest matter if most trained detectives on the case "believe" the usual suspects actually did it. And believe they'll find out how their favorite suspects REALLY did it one day even though they all have airtight alibis.
It doesn't change the facts of the case where they significantly and definitely point to someone they'd rather not suspect.

Design and codes are the product of minds, it's the ONLY known source of code...ever observed. there's no other source.
As SETI acts on scientifically, if you find code you KNOW there's intelligence.
it's not an just a baseless "opinion", it's the logical conclusion, a rational deduction, the only thing that makes sense based on what's observed.

[fj1200]

No, those are logical conclusions based on scientific evidence.

That is a faith-based conclusion. Nevertheless I can test if there is a third person on the island by looking for him. I don't want to pull a Gunny here but it becomes a semantic argument. Science will observe, hypothesize, investigate, test, and repeat until scientific conclusions are reached. At no point does science stop and say "Designer."

[revelarts]

That is a faith-based conclusion. Nevertheless I can test if there is a third person on the island by looking for him. I don't want to pull a Gunny here but it becomes a semantic argument. Science will observe, hypothesize, investigate, test, and repeat until scientific conclusions are reached. At no point does science stop and say "Designer."

so in a case where the evidence is obvious that the death is NOT accidental then UNTIL you FIND the murderer... the murderer doesn't exist.

[fj1200]

so in a case where the evidence is obvious that the death is NOT accidental then UNTIL you FIND the murderer... the murderer doesn't exist.

The murderer exists, just need to keep testing. He could have flown away in the airplane that evolved from sand and palm trees. :poke:

I'm thinking about two quotes:


'...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

and


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”