0
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:31 am
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
What's this about?


Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.
What a lovely misrepresentation of GR. It goes well with all your other misrepresentations.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:33 am
parados wrote:

First you claimed there was no evidence of a singularity before the big bang.Then when I presented that evidence......


You've provided NO evidence that such a thing actually ever existed.


parados wrote:
1. You claimed you never implied the unknown was supernatural.


You've failed to provide any quote for this.




parados wrote:
1. You claimed you provided a dictionary definition when you first used the word "supernatural.


Provide a quote.


parados wrote:
1. You claimed that the singularity violates the laws of thermodynamics.


Was the singularity subject to entropy?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:34 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
What's this about?


Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.
What a lovely misrepresentation of GR. It goes well with all your other misrepresentations.


Did Time exist pre-BB, yes or no?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:35 am
real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The "black hole" has been proven..................It's never "uniform." It continues to expand.


If the 'singularity' which is postulated to have preceded BB is akin to a black hole, how did EVERYTHING that was in this black hole escape?

I thought that nothing, including light , is able to escape a black hole. Can you explain?

How could this massive black hole simply expand, causing everything in it to escape?

Doesn't it have massive gravity holding everything in?

Isn't that the very definition of a black hole?

Wow.. Talk about being dishonest.
You take 2 statements and try to make them be about the same thing.

Quote:
The "black hole" has been proven
That is correct. The black hole has been proven. Black holes do exist.

Quote:
It's never "uniform." It continues to expand.
This statement was about the universe.

CI said nothing about the universe being the result of a black hole. That is YOUR LIE real life. Anyone can read the context of CI's statements and see how you have misrepresented them by combining them.

You are always the same real life. You are dishonest in your discussions.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:41 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
What's this about?


Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.
What a lovely misrepresentation of GR. It goes well with all your other misrepresentations.


Did Time exist pre-BB, yes or no?

GR says the present space/time continuum came into being at the BB. That does NOT mean time did or didn't exist prior to the BB.

Let's do a quick analogy.

X times Y times Z = The universe.

That formula does NOT mean that X Y and Z do not exist outside the universe. It only means they are required for the present universe.

X Y and Z may be required for the formula of what was prior to the universe but X Y and Z alone can not account for it.

Now, provide your evidence that time didn't exist in any form prior to the BB. I look forward to your answer. (A dishonest one of course.)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:44 am
Actually many people DO compare the 'singularity' to a black hole , parados.

I'm surprised you don't seem to know this.

The expanding universe that CI referred to is (supposedly) the aftermath of BB (i.e. the singularity or black hole , expanding) , is it not?

I asked CI a question, 'if........? '

If he disagrees with the premise, he is free to say so.

But the won't change the fact that the 'singularity' and 'black holes' are commonly described as very similar (i.e. massive gravity, huge amounts of matter packed densely in a tiny space)

btw parados, was the 'singularity' composed of matter? I don't think you've yet gone on record on this. wassup?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:45 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
What's this about?


Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.
What a lovely misrepresentation of GR. It goes well with all your other misrepresentations.


Did Time exist pre-BB, yes or no?

GR says the present space/time continuum came into being at the BB. That does NOT mean time did or didn't exist prior to the BB.

Let's do a quick analogy.

X times Y times Z = The universe.

That formula does NOT mean that X Y and Z do not exist outside the universe. It only means they are required for the present universe.

X Y and Z may be required for the formula of what was prior to the universe but X Y and Z alone can not account for it.

Now, provide your evidence that time didn't exist in any form prior to the BB. I look forward to your answer. (A dishonest one of course.)


Nice fudge. Time in any form.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:50 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:

First you claimed there was no evidence of a singularity before the big bang.Then when I presented that evidence......


You've provided NO evidence that such a thing actually ever existed.


parados wrote:
1. You claimed you never implied the unknown was supernatural.


You've failed to provide any quote for this.
I see, so now you are admitting that you implied the unknown was supernatural?



Quote:

parados wrote:
1. You claimed you provided a dictionary definition when you first used the word "supernatural.


Provide a quote.
Deny, deny, deny. Everyone knows you claimed to have provided a definition. You are completely dishonest. Do you really think you are winning anyone over by lying repeatedly? It's all in the details real life, isn't it? Word parsing and equivocation. So you are now saying you only provided your "made up" definition? OK.. I can live with that. It's what we have always said. You made up your definition.

Quote:

parados wrote:
1. You claimed that the singularity violates the laws of thermodynamics.


Was the singularity subject to entropy?
Nice try to change the subject from your claim about how the BB violates thermodynamics. (You are misusing entropy again by the way.) Your failure to understand science does not equate to science can't explain something.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:58 am
It's been obvious to this participant on a2k that real life has his own way of interpreting almost everything that's posted by others. FYI, I'm not one of those people who believes there's a connection between the black hole and the expansion of the universe; they are separate phenomenons.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:02 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
neologist wrote:
What's this about?


Well, it's not about time.

But maybe it's time to discuss Time.

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.
What a lovely misrepresentation of GR. It goes well with all your other misrepresentations.


Did Time exist pre-BB, yes or no?

GR says the present space/time continuum came into being at the BB. That does NOT mean time did or didn't exist prior to the BB.

Let's do a quick analogy.

X times Y times Z = The universe.

That formula does NOT mean that X Y and Z do not exist outside the universe. It only means they are required for the present universe.

X Y and Z may be required for the formula of what was prior to the universe but X Y and Z alone can not account for it.

Now, provide your evidence that time didn't exist in any form prior to the BB. I look forward to your answer. (A dishonest one of course.)


Nice fudge. Time in any form.

Laughing

Nice change of the topic. Your original charge was....
Quote:

BBers commonly postulate that Time came into being at the BB.

You have failed to support it. In fact if you admit that time can exist in forms other than that found in our own universe you have undermined your own claim.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:17 am
Do you get that confused because you are on meds, or because you are off of them, parados?

It's simply ridiculous how you twist every statement to a 'so now you are saying......' when nothing of the kind has been said. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:11 am
The king of twist, real life, wrote: It's simply ridiculous how you twist every statement to a 'so now you are saying......' when nothing of the kind has been said. Rolling Eyes+

That's a knee-slapper if there ever was one! Thanks for the LOL.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:40 am
How are you this morning, MeToo ?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 11:42 am
real life wrote:
Do you get that confused because you are on meds, or because you are off of them, parados?

It's simply ridiculous how you twist every statement to a 'so now you are saying......' when nothing of the kind has been said. Rolling Eyes


OK, rather than addressing any of the issues I raised you switch to ad hominems. Ah well. What else is new?

Did you or did you not use the words "unknown" and "supernatural" to describe the singularity prior to the BB? I hardly think I am "twisting your words." I only stated that you implied the unknown was supernatural by your use of both words to describe the same thing. Your asking me for a quote is what? A denial you said it? Or are you so forgetful you can't remember your argument from yesterday? When I said you had said the unknown was supernatural you said you had not and had never "implied" it. When presented with your own words you still denied it. Now you want a quote even after you were earlier provided with quotes? "Disingenuous" doesn't begin to describe your actions real life. You implied that the unknown was supernatural. You then pretended that science never investigates the "supernatural" hoping to capture some poor sucker with your word choice. Science always investigates unknowns. Your substitution of "supernatural" for "unknown" was obvious and you were called on it. Now you are in deny mode.



Did you or did you not claim you gave a definition when you used the word "supernatural"? Did you or did you not claim that your definition was from the dictionary? When I state as much, you pretend you never did it by asking for a quote. What kind of nonsense is that? Are you denying that you ever gave a definition? Are you denying that you said the definition was given when you used the word "supernatural?" Or are you denying that your definition is a standard one from the dictionary?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:36 pm
parados wrote:

Did you or did you not use the words "unknown" and "supernatural" to describe the singularity prior to the BB? I hardly think I am "twisting your words." I only stated that you implied the unknown was supernatural by your use of both words to describe the same thing. Your asking me for a quote is what?


I also used the phrase 'actually existed'.

But you need to read the context to see that I am saying there is NO evidence that it actually existed.

So, simply saying 'aha! you used the word!' is meaningless when you ignore the context.

Well, actually it's not meaningless. It's quite revealing. It means you twist the meaning of others.

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you get that confused because you are on meds, or because you are off of them, parados?

OK, rather than addressing any of the issues I raised you switch to ad hominems


I simply asked if you were or you weren't. I haven't been able to come up with any other explanation for your numerous bizarre posts that say:

'so then, you are now saying.........'

when I've said nothing of the kind.

I considered long and hard whether to frame the question that way, knowing you would come back and say 'it's an ad hom'.

But your outlandish posts, accusing me of saying things that bear no resemblance to what I've said, left me with few other options than to conclude some type of chemical interference.

So what's the deal, no drugs but you just can't comprehend English?

If you want to know what I said and when I said it, then go back and read it in context.

Then post my quote with the proper context, don't just say 'you said this' or 'you used this word'.

But you don't do this. You ignore the context.

You spin in circles, weaving your confused accounts of what you would like others to think I said.

And I expect you to continue.

So, let's get the top spinning again.

Hey, parados, I used the word 'scientific' when discussing the BB.

Why don't you say that I contradicted myself and I claimed that the singularity is actually scientific. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 12:50 pm
real life wrote:
What are you talking about?

We can see the sun.

There is no doubt that it exists.

No, the Sun would never have been supernatural using the definition we have been discussing.


Then you are in effect, admitting that you are using two different definitions of the word, supernatural. You stated quite clearly that by inserting the word, known, it makes no difference as to whether the singularity is supernatural or not. However, it clearly does.

The Sun, at one point, appeared to defy the laws of the universe. We didn't know about nuclear fusion. Many people thought it burned through combustion and Creationists used to use that as proof that the Earth couldn't be as old as geologists said it was, as the Sun would have long burnt out.

The geologists, however, were correct. The Earth is many millions of years old. No matter what experiments you do, the Earth can be dated to be many millions of years old. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, according to you is that the Sun was supernatural. It defied known laws of physics, just like the singularity is thought to do.

I told you that I made an error. I should have said known laws of physics. Now, if the singularity appears to defy currently known laws of physics and that makes it supernatural, then the Sun must at one point have been supernatural, because it also at one point clearly defied known laws of physics.

It doesn't matter that it never did, because according to you, the adjective 'known' doesn't make any difference. The Sun, at one point, was supernatural, just like the singularity is.

real life wrote:
From my perspective, as we've talked about in the Creation thread, the BB is supernatural explanation.


Except, no, I gave you two research papers that not only document how the Big Bang could have started, but also how the singularity could have been created and how to prove that they are correct.

You cannot do the same thing with something that is supernatural.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:20 pm
Again Wolf you ignore the fact that the existence of the Sun is easily verified.

You have NO evidence that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe actually existed.

None.

You can say all day long that 'well, it MIGHTA existed, yeah it COULDA come into being, you can't prove a negative so we'll never know FOR SURE that it wasn't there'.

But that's not evidence. It's speculation.

Was the singularity composed of matter, Wolf?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:38 pm
real life wrote:
parados wrote:

Did you or did you not use the words "unknown" and "supernatural" to describe the singularity prior to the BB? I hardly think I am "twisting your words." I only stated that you implied the unknown was supernatural by your use of both words to describe the same thing. Your asking me for a quote is what?


I also used the phrase 'actually existed'.

But you need to read the context to see that I am saying there is NO evidence that it actually existed.

So, simply saying 'aha! you used the word!' is meaningless when you ignore the context.

Well, actually it's not meaningless. It's quite revealing. It means you twist the meaning of others.
Of course, the context is important. Maybe you should the time frame of your usage of "unknown", "supernatural" and "existed." To use the phrase "Actually existed" weeks after the other 2 hardly puts it in context with the first phrases.
Quote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you get that confused because you are on meds, or because you are off of them, parados?

OK, rather than addressing any of the issues I raised you switch to ad hominems


I simply asked if you were or you weren't. I haven't been able to come up with any other explanation for your numerous bizarre posts that say:

'so then, you are now saying.........'

when I've said nothing of the kind.
LOL.. funny. You even try to pretend an ad hom isn't really one.

Quote:

I considered long and hard whether to frame the question that way, knowing you would come back and say 'it's an ad hom'.
Then why even say it. There are many of ways to state something has no meaning without attacking the person.

Quote:

But your outlandish posts, accusing me of saying things that bear no resemblance to what I've said, left me with few other options than to conclude some type of chemical interference.

So what's the deal, no drugs but you just can't comprehend English?

If you want to know what I said and when I said it, then go back and read it in context.

Then post my quote with the proper context, don't just say 'you said this' or 'you used this word'.

But you don't do this. You ignore the context.
I don't ignore the context at all.
Quote:

You spin in circles, weaving your confused accounts of what you would like others to think I said.

And I expect you to continue.

So, let's get the top spinning again.

Hey, parados, I used the word 'scientific' when discussing the BB.

Why don't you say that I contradicted myself and I claimed that the singularity is actually scientific. Laughing
So, you can't answer any of the questions I asked in my previous post?

OK.. let me provide the answers then..
Your first post on "supernatural" on this thread other than discussing "creationism" as "supernatural."
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2945238#2945238
Quote:
Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

OK, let's remember this when you begin to discuss why ID can't be brought up in a science classroom.

I must admit I am surprised.
No definition from you.
Your earlier post where you used supernatural referencing creationism is here
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2858975#2858975



Feel free to point out the lack of context by providing the posts you think are the context. The first post where you appear to give some definition of supernatural.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2949652#2949652
You state that anything outside the laws of space/time is supernatural.

Quote:
So, were the laws of science (i.e. natural causes) operative prior to the BB?

If your position is that these laws commenced with the 'genesis' of space/time at the point of the BB, then whatever caused such to commence is by definition 'supernatural', as it operated outside of and prior to natural causes

You define science as "natural" and anything outside of science as "supernatural" but the opposite of "natural" is really "unnatural." You also narrowly define the laws of science to only apply to what you want it to.
Do the laws of science apply to the horizon event? Yes, they do. Is the horizon event how matter acts near a singularity? Yes, it is.

I like this statement by you real life..
Quote:
I think I have stated on a number of occasions that I do not claim to have 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'. It is an absurd request, like asking if one can hear an odor, or smell a color.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3086738#3086738
You define the singularity as supernatural yet on repeated occasions you have asked for evidence of it. You even attempted to refute some of that evidence.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2973874#2973874
Here is where you pulled out the dictionary finally and left off half the definition. On Dec 4th, after your first use on Nov 17th. 2 weeks later from your earlier "defined" use and 2-1/2 months after you first used the word on this thread.

Then here is your statement about providing a definition.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3297007#3297007
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
If you were truly honest you would have explained your meaning the first time you used "supernatural".


You should have looked back at the point 2 months ago from which this portion of the discussion began, and you would have seen that I did exactly that.

And I have repeated my meaning numerous times since, including citing the fact that it is a standard dictionary definition.

Don't give me your 'if you were honest' garbage.

If you can't keep up on the discussion then your comments are worthless.

Your value judgements are especially ridiculous in light of your position on morality.

It is absurd for a moral relativist to ever accuse anybody of anything.

Argue context if you want real life. I have laid it all out with links.



http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3305762#3305762
real life wrote:




parados wrote:
1. You claimed you provided a dictionary definition when you first used the word "supernatural.


Provide a quote.



Why did you ask for a quote real life? Did you forget you said it? Are you going to argue the context of you saying "I did exactly that" is not a response to the direct question you were answering?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:44 pm
Just to make this painfully obvious to those that seem to be in denial

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3305762#3305762
real life wrote:




parados wrote:
1. You claimed you provided a dictionary definition when you first used the word "supernatural.


Provide a quote.






http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3297007#3297007
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
If you were truly honest you would have explained your meaning the first time you used "supernatural".


You should have looked back at the point 2 months ago from which this portion of the discussion began, and you would have seen that I did exactly that.

And I have repeated my meaning numerous times since, including citing the fact that it is a standard dictionary definition.

Don't give me your 'if you were honest' garbage.

If you can't keep up on the discussion then your comments are worthless.

Your value judgements are especially ridiculous in light of your position on morality.

It is absurd for a moral relativist to ever accuse anybody of anything.


I previously provided the links showing you did NOT do exactly that.

Are you going to argue that your definition was NOT a dictionary one?
Or are you going to say I took your statement out of context?

Your request for a quote is nothing more than an attempt to lie your way out of your own statement. You do it continually. There is no 'taken out of context' argument for you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 01:52 pm
real life wrote:
Again Wolf you ignore the fact that the existence of the Sun is easily verified.

You have NO evidence that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe actually existed.

None.

You can say all day long that 'well, it MIGHTA existed, yeah it COULDA come into being, you can't prove a negative so we'll never know FOR SURE that it wasn't there'.

But that's not evidence. It's speculation.

Was the singularity composed of matter, Wolf?

Black holes exist yet we don't know if they are really composed of matter.

Do you think black holes exist? What is your evidence they are composed of matter?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/12/2025 at 12:18:29