real life wrote:
Before you join the Ad Hom Chorale, provide a quote where I said this. I asked for this previously (not of you) and was given a quote that did not say 'anything unknown to science is supernatural', nor did it imply such.
Perhaps you need to give us your definition of "imply" real life. I think the statement and your stance quite clearly implies the unknown is supernatural. You are free to disagree which you will.
You claim the singularity is "unknown".
You claim the singularity before the BB is "supernatural".
The only logical conclusion is that you mean that something that is "unknown" is "supernatural."
Feel free to deny your words of "unknown" and "supernatural."
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with a scientist saying , 'this is unknown'. There IS something wrong with a 'scientist' saying 'we have no evidence that an entity ever existed, nor what it was composed of , so therefore this is how it would behave'.
There you go using "unknown" again (so you can't deny using that word). I guess that leaves you denying you ever claimed the singularity was "supernatural."
Quote:
That is not simply an 'unknown'. That is DRAWING CONCLUSIONS based on NO EVIDENCE.
If something is of 'unknown' compositions and properties, you cannot draw conclusions about how it would behave.
So then you can't claim "supernatural?" Or do you know the properties? Or are you just claiming that since it is "unknown" it must be "supernatural"?
Quote:
And it's properties and composition ARE unknown unless you have evidence that shows otherwise (not simply speculation).
You are doing a pretty good job of proving that you used the words "unknown" and "supernatural" to describe the same thing. You don't know what it is and you claim others don't know so it is "unknown".
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:You then turn around and pretend that science doesn't study the "supernatural".
Does it? Show me a reputable scientific authority who states such.
Show me that science doesn't study the BBT. Your argument is obviously false and deceptive real life. Either the BBT is NOT about the supernatural or it is. You can't change the meanings and pretend you didn't say something when you make it so painfully obvious in the very post you deny you ever said it.
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:You are being deceptive in first redefining a word one way. Then using the word in a different meaning you try to sucker people in. And if anyone agrees with the second meaning you will revert to the first meaning as if that was what you meant all along.
I 'redefined' nothing. I cited a definition from a standard dictionary and used that definition consistently. I didn't 'revert' to another defintion.
Prove it. Prove you cited a dictionary definition. I earlier cited your first posts on this thread and you cited no dictionary. Please provide evidence of you ever citing a dictionary without someone else citing it first.
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Disagreeing is not ignoring, RL.
Now you followed that statement by asking for proof. This is where your deception knows no bounds, because you realise that to give proof, someone has to wade through a stupidly large number of pages just to find the appropriate quotes.
It takes a stupidly long time, especially since some people like to double, triple or even quadruple post.
Use the Search feature. It's quick and easy. I use it all the time.
Good, then you should be able to provide us with the post you cited the dictionary for the meaning of "supernatural".
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:However, you have chosen to ignore my statements. I stated that I made an error when I said that the singularity does not obey the laws of the Universe.
Your statement was consistent with the statements of many others. For instance , we are told that GR 'breaks down' etc.
Who told you that?
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:I even stated before I made that assertion that I am no major in physics and that I could be potentially wrong. Not only have I repeated that I meant to say "known laws of physics" but everyone else has been saying "known laws" too.
GR is fairly well known.
Perhaps, but you certainly don't understand it. GR predicts black holes and singularities. Is General Relativity science? General relativity says that all photons that leave a singularity will red shift. The universe is red shifted. Hmm.... that would be evidence of the universe leaving a singularity. Oh.. that's right. You said there was "no evidence" of a singularity prior to the universe. But then you also said that GR was fairly well known. The only thing you are showing is you don't know a damn thing about GR.
Quote:
I do not denigrate science. I ask questions of it, and expect it to be applied consistently.
You consistently denigrate science when you claim it says something that it doesn't. Or you claim it provides no evidence when it does. Either deal with the evidence of the BBT theory or admit that you are denigrating science. I posted a link. You dealt with none of it other than to denigrate science by claiming that 1/100,000 of a degree variation shows the CMBR isn't consistent enough for you. Yet you have shown no scientist that says the same thing.
You expect consistency? Are you consistent? Other than in your dishonesty?
Quote:
There is nothing wrong in that.
Not if your consistency is based on integrity which yours is not.
Quote:
My position is and has been that the 'singularity' ( I have not said 'all of science' ) rests on the same type of supernatural foundation that creation does.
There it is. You can't deny it. You claim the "unknown" is "supernatural." You have used BOTH words to describe the same thing. Then you claim it wasn't implied. It is very much implied that you consider the "unknown" to be "supernatural." You are tying the "unknown" to the "supernatural". How you can deny that you are is beyond me. This post shows your argument and no one with any sense can think you are NOT tying the two together.
Quote:
No one has seen God. And there is no evidence that a 'singularity' preceding BB ever actually existed either.
That must be your understanding of GR that leads you to this conclusion? Explain the red shift under GR other than the "singularity" since you claim there is "no evidence."
Quote:
God is defined as being able to do whatever He wishes, even if it violates scientific law. The 'singularity' of BB lore is defined as not being subject to the physical laws of our universe.
Only by your distorted definitions of those laws. You use the laws of thermodynamics while ignoring GR in discussing the BBT.
Quote:
No one can explain where God came from. No one can explain when, where or how the 'singularity' originated or what was before it.
God is spirit, what's a spirit made of, who knows? The singularity is of unknown composition and unknown properties , YET so called scientific types confidently predict how it behaved even though they have no evidence that it would've done so.
Sorry you object to my doubts. I am a doubter, no doubt about it. If you think it's inappropriate for someone to ask questions of science, then I won't be of much help to you.
You are a doubter with no desire to find the truth. When presented with science you revert back to your own definitions and ignore the answers that don't give you the distortions you want. It is inappropriate to not listen or try to understand the answers if you keep asking questions.
Quote:
Hope you're having a great day.
How nice of you. I hope you stop having ignorant days.
