Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Apparently the Schwarzschild solution also predicts the existence of a singularity.

Also, I'd like to point out that the First Law of Thermodynamics can be violated naturally.

Energy (dE) can come out of existence for a period of time dt, where

dExdt >=h

(the uncertainty principle). This is called a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. This phenomenon has been experimentally confirmed and is responsible for the black hole radiation.

Besides, so what if the singularity is proved false? That doesn't mean your first cause is true.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
From about 2 months ago
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3201612#3201612

Quote:
Scientific law (1st Law/Conservation) prohibits the universe from being created. (i.e. it is not possible for the universe to have formed using natural processes.)

Therefore, the universe was formed then using a supernatural (i.e. not natural) process or act.

Note that you didn't post a link to where you copied from to introduce it into this thread.

If anyone wants to check, for a couple of weeks prior to your introduction of this statement of yours, "supernatural" had been used on this thread in the discussion of God and other supernatural beings. Simply inserting the phrase "not natural" doesn't eliminate the prior context.

What I said then:

"All I am doing is pointing out that the universe did not come into existence by 'natural' means, which you seem to admit when you appeal to a process outside the bounds of scientific law; and the presence of an entity (a 'singularity') for which you have no evidence , but you believe it existed anyway.

What is outside the bounds of scientific law?
The fact that you don't use quantum physics doesn't make a singularity outside science. It only means you don't accept any science other than what you can try to misuse.

Quote:

Such is , by definition, a belief in the 'supernatural'."

is what I've repeated several times since.

Your statement:

"By claiming that "supernatural" means anything that doesn't follow the existing scientific laws that you are willing to admit exist while ignoring the rest of physics, you are misleading. "

is a great example of the mischaracterization that you engage in on a regular basis.

And you want to claim others are 'dishonest' while you post such garbage.

Really, so you explained it all in a way that meets scientific standards? Can you point to where? Your continued mischaracterization of how the laws of thermodynamics work don't explain anything.

Quote:

If you have any evidence that a singularity ACTUALLY DID exist prior to BB, then post it.

But you don't.

You can only say , 'well it COULDA, yeah it MIGHTA been'.

We are talking about your use of the word "supernatural". If you have evidence that it is outside the natural world then present it. But it is YOU that can only say COULDA and MIGHTA been supernatural

Quote:

That's not evidence.

That's faith.

Yes your statements are made on faith without any evidence. We keep telling you that.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Besides, so what if the singularity is proved false? That doesn't mean your first cause is true.

This goes right to the heart of "real life's" feeble forensic strategy. Being a typical, shallow christian dualist, he thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The value judgement that is apparent in parados' statement is his accusation that I intend to mislead.

Hello?

Value-neutral. Yeah right.

OK, clown, since you want to play games, i'll rub your lying nose in it. This is the post which began this nonsense.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Read this carefully:
Since I am the one who made the statement, I think I am a pretty good judge of what I meant and what I didn't. My usage did not 'distort' my meaning.

We all quite aware that your usage didn't "distort" the meaning from your intent.

The problem real life is in your intent. You intend to mislead the uninformed. Your intent is to not be clear in your language. Your intent is to attack science with nothing in your quiver but unintelligent babble. (emphasis added)

Then you quote Parados, limiting yourself to exactly the sentence which i have emphasized above, and you do not refer to any pejorative statement about yourself. Rather, you take the value neutral expression "the uninformed," and you turn it into "ignorant masses," an expression fraught with the implication of patronizing of which you accuse Parados. But Parados did not mention "ignorant masses," and nowhere speculated on how many people might comprise the uninformed. You were perverting what he wrote in an attempt to paint him in negative hues. The evidence is right here:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

That post had no regard for whether or not the remark reflected unfavorably on you personally, your thrust was to accuse him of some kind of elitism.

Now you are whining about an insult to you.

Liar

Moron

Oh dear, oh my . . . Parados has wounded you in your self love . . . boo hoo hoo . . .

0 Replies

No replies? That's ok. I'm you're all very tied up in debating whether the only plausible and widely accepted scientific theory is better than one made by people with no scientific understanding whose only source is a book written, rewritten, selected, sorted and morphed by a hundred different people with opposing beliefs over thousands of years.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Intention is not the same as effect.

Very true.

But if you are unable or unwilling to understand what I've said after having had it explained to you several times, then I am not responsible for the effect.

lol, that would've made more sense before you said, "Do you consider a belief in the supernatural to be a 'scientific view'?". Really, now. Don't be inept: we can go back and read the things you just said, and you're trying to imply that you're comparing the same type of "supernatural" as that which is excluded by science.

Oh, but surely it's *my* problem and my inability and unwillingness to understand what you're saying. Sure.

real life wrote:

Did you change your mind, or just decide to be honest about your intentions?

Changed my mind. Temporarily forgot, really, as in either case you're still failing magnificently. You misapplied the definition *and* even if you hadn't, you'd be guilty of equivocation.

real life wrote:

btw, what makes you think that you're a better judge of what I am trying to convey than I am?

That's only one of the possibilities. Another would be that you're dishonest or inept.

After all, what's the point of your jab at someone being "scientific" concerning the supernatural if you're not doing exactly what I've said? I suppose my only presupposition here has been that you are slightly competent.

real life wrote:

is all about a distinction without a difference.

If it ain't 'natural', it ain't science, right?

Holy crap, "real life". Do you just enjoy lying or do you honestly not notice that you're equivocating the two idea of "supernatural"? Do you even know what the word "equivocation" means?

It seems Setanta has noticed this as well and from your dealing with parados, it seems the evidence would sadly point to the former option being the more likely one :/.

So, how about that evidence for creationism, "real life". You're aware that cheap and fallacious attacks on science don't constitute evidence for creationism, aren't you? I may be wrong, but I think I remember the cosmological argument coming up at some point. Do you find that convincing?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

HEE HEE HEE.

Hey bd, I wasnt the one who made the joke at your expense. I was what we call in the comedy industry, "The STraight Man".

QUAK QUAK

Ehh.... Stuff like that happen all the time... People get used to it eventually.... I never was into science or anything... acctually, you really can't take me seriously... I'm just doing this because I enjoy debating... No I don't care weather I win or lose.... So go ahead.... I'm liking this..... And yeah, I don't do much searching on the net either.... I'm pretty much bored reading any of the stuff I see..... hehehe..... rakenrol..... (supot kayu amin!!!!!)

0 Replies

Now that summer is here, many a camp counselor will introduce his or her charges to their first snipe hunt.

No way any of them will beat this.

0 Replies

I think a little someone is feeling neglected, wants some attention.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Do you just enjoy lying or do you honestly not notice that you're equivocating the two idea of "supernatural"? Do you even know what the word "equivocation" means?

Shira,

I didn't simply use the word, I've repeatedly explained what I meant by it, and more than once I have cited the specific dictionary definition which correlates.

If you cannot or will not read or understand that, it is not my concern.

You can toss ridiculous accusations all day, however all one must do is read thru the thread in context to see how foolish you appear in doing so.

0 Replies

As I said earlier real life, your distinction without a difference makes your God unnatural just as it is contended about homosexuality. Since homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" that would make your God unnatural and therefore sinful.

Substiting "unnatural" for "supernatural" leads to all kinds of confusion for the reader. Your refusal to admit it shows how silly your argument is. It's fun when you use the words the way you want to real life. It just isn't very honest.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

That post had no regard for whether or not the remark reflected unfavorably on you personally, your thrust was to accuse him of some kind of elitism.

Now you are whining about an insult to you.

Your sarcasm detector is on the blink. Please replace the batteries. Laughing

Of course his remark was elitist. He is the good. The moral. And the wise.

His remark was not only condescending to myself , but to everyone who disagrees with him. They are 'uninformed' , i.e. they are ignorant ! they MUST be! because if they knew what he knows they would agree with him.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

As I said earlier real life, your distinction without a difference makes your God unnatural just as it is contended about homosexuality. Since homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" that would make your God unnatural and therefore sinful.

Substiting "unnatural" for "supernatural" leads to all kinds of confusion for the reader. Your refusal to admit it shows how silly your argument is. It's fun when you use the words the way you want to real life. It just isn't very honest.

Setanta's attempt to avoid the use of 'supernatural' in favor of 'unnatural', or 'non-natural' or 'other than natural' makes NO difference in tipping the argument in his favor because science deals only with the natural.

Maybe if you had read the whole post, you would've understood the context.

Setanta was not referring to homosexuality.

He was grasping for a substitute word so that he didn't have to admit that 'supernatural' was the correct term to describe what was being discussed. Laughing

And it wasn't homosexuality.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

0 Replies

Re: Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

aperson wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

My God, I like this guy. Please tell me this is a tribute to an earlier thread by me of a simlar name. I would be soooo flattered!

Ah! real life, we meet again. Seems like you haven't changed since the last time. Holy ****, where is your forum decorum? Septuple posting?? That's unheard of!!

aperson wrote:

No replies? That's ok.

You want a reply to the post of you groveling before Wilso, one of the finest practitioners of hate speech on A2K?

Ok, here's my reply: Do a better job choosing your heroes , young man.

Post something of substance and you might get a better reply.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

That post had no regard for whether or not the remark reflected unfavorably on you personally, your thrust was to accuse him of some kind of elitism.

Now you are whining about an insult to you.

Your sarcasm detector is on the blink. Please replace the batteries.

Of course his remark was elitist. He is the good. The moral. And the wise.

His remark was not only condescending to myself , but to everyone who disagrees with him. They are 'uninformed' , i.e. they are ignorant ! they MUST be! because if they knew what he knows they would agree with him.

Your hypocrisy generator is running on high, and probably overheating.

Parados spoke of the uninformed. You twisted that into "ignorant masses" because uniformed is value neutral, and you wanted to make him look as bad as possible. When called on that, you have attempted to claim that you hadn't said what was patently meant by what you had written.

Liar.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar.

0 Replies

It would seem that there are pre-Big Bang models that use known laws of physics as detailed in:

Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-theory by Jean-Luc Jehners, Paul McFadden and Neil Turok, arXiv (12 February 2007)

and

Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before the Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok and Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19 February 2007

Their particular models use extra-dimensions, but they note quite clealry in the second cited paper, that their formulism also apply to models that do not require extra dimensions.

They also note that to prove their theory true, all one has to do is measure the spectrum of gravitational waves passing through the universe and see whether they are shorter than the natural range for inflationary models.

This by definition precludes it from being supernatural, because the supernatural cannot be tested for.

Really, I should have gone and asked some experts about what current physics says instead of what I read about physics about a decade ago. My bad. Embarrassed

P.S. Admittedly, this paper was very hard to decipher due to its very technical language. What I've detailed here is about as much as I can understand of the damned things.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
You intend to mislead the uninformed.

How patronizing of you, parados.

'Smart guys' like you are surely going to be ok, but you are concerned about the ignorant masses who might consider a view other than what you consider safe.

You're very thoughtful.

That post had no regard for whether or not the remark reflected unfavorably on you personally, your thrust was to accuse him of some kind of elitism.

Now you are whining about an insult to you.

Your sarcasm detector is on the blink. Please replace the batteries.

Of course his remark was elitist. He is the good. The moral. And the wise.

His remark was not only condescending to myself , but to everyone who disagrees with him. They are 'uninformed' , i.e. they are ignorant ! they MUST be! because if they knew what he knows they would agree with him.

Your hypocrisy generator is running on high, and probably overheating.

Parados spoke of the uninformed. You twisted that into "ignorant masses" because uniformed is value neutral, and you wanted to make him look as bad as possible. When called on that, you have attempted to claim that you hadn't said what was patently meant by what you had written.

Liar.

You can't seem to decide if the word 'ignorant' is value-neutral or not.

Here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3296941#3296941

you admit that the terms 'uninformed' and 'ignorant' may be used synonomously.

But only by you or parados , I suppose. Laughing

One thing for sure, an accusation of 'intending to mislead' is NOT 'value-neutral' , and that is the statement you are running away from.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar.

Reduced to the ad homs, are you?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know