Scientists Theorize the Big Bang may not Have happened

[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. 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. -Tyr

[Gunny]

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

[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?

[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, the question is moot.^[11] In his book, 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] 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] 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...e-life-itself/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...n-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.