7
   

Big Bang or a Stretch of God's Imagination?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 02:53 pm
@voiceindarkness,
Do you have a point you're trying to make?
0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 03:00 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

I do hope you're in therapy, Voice. If you actually believe the crap you just posted, you're in worse shape than I had realized. The Torah (Old Testament) was written in Heaven ??? Where the hell's that? Beyond the furthest galaxy we're aware of? You're hopeless, son. My sincere sympathies go out to you.
Huh? What I said was,"The old testament was written in Hebrew," (Hebrew) Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 03:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
stop it's motion by observing it and it appears as a particle.
Quote:
Outside of this crap, youve made MY point. Its experimentally shown about lights properties (no it doesnt stop and still remain visible, it moves on and disperses)
It is stopped at the instant it is observed, then it moves on. In the short distance of the double slit experiment, From the point of observation, to the slits, it expands very little and appears as particle.
Quote:
Do you know in what form light is propagated? One or the other or both (particle or wave)?
Particle, then expands to wave.


voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 03:50 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

voiceindarkness wrote:
The old testament was written in Hebrew, The new testament in Greek. Copies of books in the old testament where found with the dead sea scrolls.


The Old Testament may have been written in Hebrew originally but the only Hebrew language copies we have today are all re-translations from the Greek. The originals were destroyed when the Second Temple in Jerusalem was razed in the uprising against Rome in 70 c.e. There were Greek translations available, however, and they were quickly re-translated into Hebrew for use in the Synagogues.

Quote:
Precious little of the Torah was found at the Tel Qumran dig where the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.
so-called?
Quote:
The Essene sect which ran the facility was very Messiah-oriented and hence has excited the imagination of Christian scholars. But most historians who have seen and studied the scrolls don't find anything significant in them that they did not already know.
You should research the Dead Sea Scrolls a bit further.
The reference to the Teacher of Righteousness and the war between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness is a mystery. Scholars look to history to find who or what this is in reference to.
This is a prophetic reference to a teacher, and a war yet to come.

0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 06:16 pm
Which side of the big bong were you on when the mind was blown? Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 07:41 pm
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
It is stopped at the instant it is observed, then it moves on.


so now light has intelligence? Does a freight train stop at the moment its observed?

We seem never to have to worry that you will someday talk out of your mouth. Your other orifice says it all.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 07:43 pm
@farmerman,
Im curious, were you talking Big Band to Dawkins when he left you?
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 09:42 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Im curious, were you talking Big Band to Dawkins when he left you?
Big Bad Bong Cool
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 09:58 pm
@voiceindarkness,
well I suppose I deserved that for my careless attention to spelling. However, I still am curious about at what point (and what subject was being discussed) when DAwkins decided to terminate your conversation??

Were you as compelling as youve been here?

voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2011 10:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

well I suppose I deserved that for my careless attention to spelling. However,
Quote:
I still am curious about at what point (and what subject was being discussed) when DAwkins decided to terminate your conversation??
Dawkins didn't terminate the conversation. As always, I couldn't keep him and one other person focused on my topic. All they wanted to focus on, was my belief in God.
I had to reply to there remarks. The moderator shut down my thread, saying that it was a science forum, not a religious form. Rolling Eyes
Quote:
Were you as compelling as youve been here?
I am repelled everywhere I go. Cool Light and darkness don't mix.If one does not want to open one's eyes, he cant hear what I'm seeing. Rolling Eyes


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 06:17 am
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
The moderator shut down my thread
I see, so it wasnt DAwkins who terminated anything, it was the mod. Probably the science line had specific rules of "engagement" inorder to keep it intereting, relevant, and factual. Just as teaching Creationism and ID have no places in public science curriculum in the US, so do local rules of Chat Rooms .
The way the mod enforced the rules shouldnt be a cause for your claiming some ersatz victory . It is , in fact, the equivalent of a moderator of a talk station cutting someone off who starts babbling nonsense.
Of course I dont call your talk points nonsense, they just arent science.
Also, your ideas need some evidence to support.
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 08:59 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The moderator shut down my thread
I see, so it wasnt DAwkins who terminated anything, it was the mod. Probably the science line had specific rules of "engagement" inorder to keep it intereting, relevant, and factual. Just as teaching Creationism and ID have no places in public science curriculum in the US, so do local rules of Chat Rooms .
Quote:
The way the mod enforced the rules shouldnt be a cause for your claiming some ersatz victory .
I never claimed a victory. I said I had no problem debating him.
Quote:
It is , in fact, the equivalent of a moderator of a talk station cutting someone off who starts babbling nonsense.
Did you read my response? (As always, I couldn't keep him and one other person focused on my topic. All they wanted to focus on, was my belief in God.
I had to reply to there remarks. The moderator shut down my thread, saying that it was a science forum, not a religious form).
Quote:
Of course I dont call your talk points nonsense, they just arent science.
Science says,or at least those who are studying it, There is an edge to the universe. They are not looking to the edge of anything, they are looking to the past, to the beginning of creation. In the beginning all of the energy in the universe was was a single point even smaller than an Atom? Then for some reason there was a big bang, and the universe expanded to infinite size as it created itself. This is science?
The beginning universe was very hot? That,s where my theory begins, at quark confinement, when the energy that makes up matter began.
So far, all I have gotten is smart ass remarks about my theory not being science. Because in my theory the entire infinite universe came into being everywhere simultaneously, and begins with God.
Quote:
Also, your ideas need some evidence to support.
At least Richard Dawkins did debate the points of my theory. Be specific, what points of my theory isn't supported by evidence? All I see in the world of science is unanswered questions, and made up stupid ideas trying to answer them. They have there heads stuck up their asses looking at a big bang theory that is scientifically imposable for so many reasons.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 09:10 am
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
This is science?
There are several hypotheses of the universe and multiverses. "Edge effects" arent a problem in the math.
Neither are multi dimensions. I dont know how far you went in your academic science training but we do multidimensional analyses in almost every field except social "science".

You jumped right over my assertion that religious based "theories" have no place in science curricula.
AND FOR THE LAST DAMN TIME, yours is not a theory its an idea rising to a hypothesis. You flatter yourself by annointing a Creationist " worldview as a theory. Theres no evidence surrounding it unless youre trying to dovetail into some kind of theistic Big Bangery.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 09:14 am
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
a big bang theory that is scientifically imposable for so many reasons.
Its funny because the Big BAng as a concept was first developed by a cleric. Then, as evidence grew, it became the center of Nobel Prizes of discoveries in Physics.

Your ideas are always welcome into the dsicussion but you need to be a lot more specific and rigorous
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 12:38 pm
The domain of science includes only that which is capable of observation and verification. The origin of the universe is outside the domain of such a science which is, by its own definition incapable, of proving anything about it. Hence we have "singularities" (the mathematical definition of which is something that is undefined) such as the big bang; or an infinite (or merely unbounded) sequence of expansions & catastrophic, creative expansions; or an infinity of quantum multiverses.

The real issue here is whether there is any knowledge or understanding to be had outside 0of human science. Folks like Stephen Hawking assert that there is none. Many others, including many serious philosophers, disagree. I also disagree. Many scientists infer that they can "discover" the origin of our universe, when, in fact by their own definition of what is knowable, they cannot.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:23 pm
@georgeob1,
So far the evidence for such an event as the BB has not been overturned. Originally, I was not a fan of the BB but, as the evidence streams had become more refined, I feel that the wvidence for the event as I originally defined within this thread, is compelling.
Having been a fan of multi dimensional analyses , I subscribe to many of the postulates for a multiverse and M theory (of course M theory is no more a theory than is that of the thread host's worldview).
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:29 pm
@farmerman,
Our hosts entire worldview on this and evolution etc is based upon incredulity. Incredulity usually gets swept away along with ignorance.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 05:00 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

So far the evidence for such an event as the BB has not been overturned. Originally, I was not a fan of the BB but, as the evidence streams had become more refined, I feel that the wvidence for the event as I originally defined within this thread, is compelling.
Having been a fan of multi dimensional analyses , I subscribe to many of the postulates for a multiverse and M theory (of course M theory is no more a theory than is that of the thread host's worldview).

No argument with you there. However while science may one day be able to exclude the Big Bang, or perhaps alternate theories, (they don't as yet have any theory that is either complete or not apparantly in contradiction to some of the, often scattered, evidence), it will not be able to confirm any of them, because the event cannot be observed. Thus science does not, and cannot, provide a conclusive argument for either the origin or existence of the universe in its own terms.

Both theism and atheism involve acts of faith. Take your pick.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 06:23 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Both theism and atheism involve acts of faith.
Non -relevant. I wasnt being defensive so why are you? As many say (and you can buy the logic) we gravitate towards where the evidence piles up. You know damn well that is some way the theistic evolution or "A hand of God" was in play at the Creation, dont you think that some scientist who comes up with the evidence will have his or her career enshrined?.
Its not one camp against another , I kinda resent that argument cause its tired out. Its evidence that leads us. and right now, we DO have evidence of the uniaxial expansion from a beginning of a dense small hot nucleus hypothesis (as originally proposed by Fr George Lemaitre) to an expanding universe. Thats why its a theory today.

I cannot give anything but praise to guys like mike Behe who actually expends a career path to search for "intelligence" in evolution. They are on a road that, so far, hasnt led them anywhere but back to DArwin.

Imagine these guys at CERN who discovered and recalculated the initial discovery that the neutrino can travel at { (c) +n}. I actually hope they are right cause , like saul perlmutter said recently"That would really make our collective days and send us all out on different paths of inquiry).
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 09:27 pm
@farmerman,
I sypmathize with your viewpoint; have no grudge with physicists; and find the scientific speculations about cosmology both personally fascinating and worthy of study. In short I share your interest in science (though I suspect I know more mathematics and far less biology and chemistry than you).

However, I note that far more acreage here has been devoted to bashing theism and "ID iots" by many posters here, yourself included, based on the false notion that Darwin, the observable process of evolution and the distant boundaries of physics and quantum mechanics somehow prove it all wrong - than has ever been put forward in support of a theistic view. The truth is sience neither supports nor refutes it.
 

Related Topics

If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Bad News for "Big Bang(TM)" - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did all the antimatter go? - Discussion by CAfrica141
New TV series: Young Sheldon - Discussion by edgarblythe
God's Critical Mass - Question by dalehileman
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 10:17:11