davidylan:


that's overly simplistic as to be downright laughable. Anything that gets bigger started from a point... ergo the BB is true?
I might as well also tell you that anything that rustles grass contains oxygen right?

No you can't. Any gas can cause rustling.

Anything that expands got started and must be pretty (astronomically) recent. Else its expansion would be for infinity and to infinity, and everything would have torn appart, and we couldn't be here.

ooman:


No you can't. Any gas can cause rustling.

Anything that expands got started and must be pretty (astronomically) recent. Else its expansion would be for infinity and to infinity, and everything would have torn appart, and we couldn't be here.

1. well you dont know that the earth does not expand to infinity now do you?

2. While any gas can cause rustling, i can bet there will be some dogmatic folks (like you) who would absolutely insist that in the absence of an obvious/visible external force, a rustling grass can only be due to a gas that contains oxygen.

davidylan:


basically the same old verbal diarrhea and nothing of substance. You highlighted the word "complement"... i'm assuming you think the idea being propagated by the blog is claiming this is a "complement" to the BB? Which makes zero sense as they absolutely do not reference the BB at all in the sentence you quoted. Last i checked, the theory of relativity is not equivalent to the BB in any way, shape or form.

Like Plaetton, it seems you have not read the article in sufficient detail as to actually understand it. The BB as a theory claims that the universe began at a particular point, the idea the blog puts forward is that the universe never had a beginning... i'm not sure how one complements the other. But of course... when you're confused, simply post as many curse words as you know. Your post is an embarrassment to any 5 yr old with a brain.

It states this universe came to be at a particular point. More precisely, that an 'explosion' of this universe's spacetime came to be at a particular point. It says absolutely nothing about what was before it. It never states, especially like you did in the post I quoted (and I bolded out, and you oh so wisely chose to ignore), that it required a 'spark' to trigger it, and you know this (unless you're genuinely re.tarded, ie). That is a bold faced, shameless lie. Please prove me wrong.

BB theory is built around GR.GR, when followed to its logical conclusions, would point to this universe having had a starting point, just as say entropy does (or at least something cyclical or such). Please, I won't bother explaining to someone supposedly educated in the sciences. You are the one that is supposed to be pointing this out sef...

This theory is supposed to complement GR to give an expanded account of these events (ie BB et al, in case you're still confused). Please, look up effective theories is you're still monumentally confused, as they demonstrate how science builds its way up to what is hoped to be that final, grand TEO.


Once again, stop lying. The only thing correct here is that I've not actually read the article yet. I know nothing there will contradict anything I've posted here as the source is fairly reputable, unlike certain 'scientists'. Also, make up your mind, oh yeh of the 'big brain'. Do you want detailed or short posts? [s]Actually, doesn't matter. Considering I won't be wasting too much time on you....for obvious reasons.[/s]

davidylan:


1. well you dont know that the earth does not expand to infinity now do you?

2. While any gas can cause rustling, i can bet there will be some dogmatic folks (like you) who would absolutely insist that in the absence of an obvious/visible external force, a rustling grass can only be due to a gas that contains oxygen.

How am I dogmatic? Have I forced you to accept BB? I only said remain skeptical till there is empirical data.

Does the earth expand at all?

How can anyone of my educational level suggest anything like your 2 point?

How can anyone of your own educational level even think of anything like that.

Dont mistake me for those people in your sunday school. I think, ok?

macof:


Can't u jst shut up and stop exposing your idiocy?

Energy originated from God?

I know energy is your God nah

How could everything in existence not have a begining?

ooman:


How am I dogmatic? Have I forced you to accept BB? I only said remain skeptical till there is empirical data.

Does the earth expand at all?

How can anyone of my educational level suggest anything like your 2 point?

How can anyone of your own educational level even think of anything like that.

Dont mistake me for those people in your sunday school. I think, ok?

Davidylan is perhaps the biggest mystery in this part of the universe.
This is why I always question his much touted educational credentials.
He argues straight from Sunday school curriculum.

plaetton:


Davidylan is perhaps the biggest mystery in this part of the universe.
This is why I always question his much touted educational credentials.
He argues straight from Sunday school curriculum.

He is a creationist,what do you expect?
Creationism relies on tenants like arrogance, science denialism,equivocation and misinformation....examine his posts and you'll see the trend where he bursted in arrogantly,then began denying CMB,then equivocated the earth and the universe...thus spreading misinformation.
Look no further and you'll see the same in the puppet masters like ken ham and his flintstones museum...

Emusan:


I know energy is your God nah

Do you even know what I consider as a God

Masterclass32:
How could everything in existence not have a begining?

not everything in existence or anything in particular but the Universe...it's better to put it as "The universe has no beginning", at least based on available evidence

jayriginal:


Isnt that the difference between a mind open to learning as opposed to one closed by dogma? Blind faith?

I suppose you have the open to learning sort of mind eh?

plaetton:


Davidylan is perhaps the biggest mystery in this part of the universe.
This is why I always question his much touted educational credentials.
He argues straight from Sunday school curriculum.

Your credibility is the one on the line. You should be able to argue with facts. i find it amusing that rather than take me up on the issues, you devolve into personal attacks... it is evidence that you have very little beyond huffing and puffing to offer.

davidylan:


Your credibility is the one on the line. You should be able to argue with facts. i find it amusing that rather than take me up on the issues, you devolve into personal attacks... it is evidence that you have very little beyond huffing and puffing to offer.

Davien, Wiegraf and others have already put your childish arguments to the dustbin.

And actaully, davidlan, I did think about dismantling most of the crap you spurted on your intellectually laughable and dishonest posts. But then, it is the same musical chairs with you on almost every issue.
There is no type of argument I have not made with you.

Your take on every issue takes on the same ridiculous lopesided pattern all the time,..outright lies, bellicose and stark ignorance, sunday school reasoning, plagerised pseudo-science from your creationist mentors, etc.
This has always baffled me.

I don't like repetition, and I can't always codenscend to doing circular arguments with you at your intellectually Lilliputian levels.

davidylan:


no it hasn't. lets just stop the unnecessary BS. Micro-evolution (essentially random gene mutation) is real, macro evolution (your theory of evolution) is a farce.

Yes!!! Just like I always tell folks, Micro-economics ( individuals' and other small entity resource allocations and behavior) is real, Macro- economics ( the behavior of all participants and allocation of resources of the entire economy) is a farce.

Martian:


Yes!!! Just like I always tell folks, Micro-economics ( individuals' and other small entity resource allocations and behavior) is real, Macro- economics ( the behavior of all participants and allocation of resources of the entire economy) is a farce.

apples to oranges. I struggled to see the sense in the above comment.

plaetton:


Davien, Wiegraf and others have already put your childish arguments to the dustbin.

And actaully, davidlan, I did think about dismantling most of the crap you spurted on your intellectually laughable and dishonest posts. But then, it is the same musical chairs with you on almost every issue.
There is no type of argument I have not made with you.

Your take on every issue takes on the same ridiculous lopesided pattern all the time,..outright lies, bellicose and stark ignorance, sunday school reasoning, plagerised pseudo-science from your creationist mentors, etc.
This has always baffled me.

I don't like repetition, and I can't always codenscend to doing circular arguments with you at your intellectually Lilliputian levels.

You have had plenty of opportunities to provide the scientific basis to your claims... even the one you started this thread with. All i get is immature personality attacks that end up lowering the standard of responsible debate. It says more about you than me to be honest.

davidylan:


You have had plenty of opportunities to provide the scientific basis to your claims... even the one you started this thread with. All i get is immature personality attacks that end up lowering the standard of responsible debate. It says more about you than me to be honest.

Please go back through the thread and please Show what claims I have made on this thread.

plaetton:


Please go back through the thread and please Show what claims I have made on this thread.

Lets start with the very basis of the thread. I notice that outside of simply reporting what they said, you had absolutely zero scientific basis for indicating whether you thought their claim had any merit or not. I remember ooman asking how the idea meshed with the CMBR theory and you basically glazed over it. You seem to have an easier time hurling insults.

davidylan:


Lets start with the very basis of the thread. I notice that outside of simply reporting what they said, you had absolutely zero scientific basis for indicating whether you thought their claim had any merit or not. I remember ooman asking how the idea meshed with the CMBR theory and you basically glazed over it. You seem to have an easier time hurling insults.

First, davidylan, this is the problem with you guys burdened with belief and faith.

I opened the thread, first, as usual, to show what is new in scientific thinking. Again I feel sad that I have to explain this to someone who calls himself a scientist.

What the thread, the ideas expressed in the article does formost, for people who think, is that it opens a new window of thought. Where it eventually leads to, no one can say for sure, but a new window of thought.
The article, being a new scientific idea, has not in any way nullified all that is already assumed to be scientific facts, but rather, is a welcome compliment that may answer or shed some light on hitherto scientific questions.
This is the way of science.

Whether it accomodates or questions the validity of CMBR is something that we have to wait and see. Scientifc ideas and notions are not dogmas that are pronouced and take immediate effect.
This new germ or seed, or window of thought may lead us to areas of thought never contemplated.

You and people of faith like you are not in the same mental universe with people like me.
I do not feel threatened by new ideas, no mather what old ideas may be threatened.

You just dont get it.
A scientific idea and the religous ideas that you are encumbered with are not in the same plane.

Your specific problem, davidylan, the reason that you more prone to personal attacks is that you use your religiously encumbered mind to make scientific arguments, thereby making a great fool of yourself each time.

You, yourself have said that religious belief should never be expected to be irrational, because it relies on things that are not rational, faith.
Then why do you always conflate and convolute your faith with your scientific vocation , which requires non-compromise use of rationality ?

davidylan:


Lets start with the very basis of the thread. I notice that outside of simply reporting what they said, you had absolutely zero scientific basis for indicating whether you thought their claim had any merit or not. I remember ooman asking how the idea meshed with the CMBR theory and you basically glazed over it. You seem to have an easier time hurling insults.

We expect butter, not necessarily agreeable, but robust and intellectually sounder arguments from you in the areas of science and theology.
Instead, we get same old bible school trash we already get from pentecostal half retards.
This is why we all question your academic credentials.
Step up your game or quit engaging in arguments where faith is not an issue.

^^^^
For example.

If you repeat that Phys.org is an atheist website, then I realized it was a waste of time even engaging you.
That is a cop out that proves that you more threatened by the article than what you may learn from it.

Once again, you betrayed that you were coming from a position of irrationality.

No person with a grade 10 education can say something as utterly shameful and ridiculous.

plaetton:


First, davidylan, this is the problem with your guys burdened with belief and faith.

I opened the thread, first as usual, to show what is new in scientific thinking. Again I feel sad that I have to explain this to someone who calls himself a scientist.

What th thread, the ideas expressed in the article does formost for people who think is that is opens a new window of thought. Where it eventually leads to, no one can say for sure, but a new window of thought.
The article, being a new scientific idea, has not in one nullified all that is already assumed to be scientific facts, but rather, is a welcome compliment that may answer or shed some light on hitherto scientific questions.
This is the way of science.
Whether is accomodates of questions the validity of CMBR is something that we have to wait and see. Scientifc ideas and notions are not dogmas that are pronouced and take immediate effect.
This new germ or seed, or window of thought may lead us to areas of thought never contemplated.

You and peple of faith like you ar not in the same mental universe with people like me.
I do not feel threatened by new ideas, no mather what old ideas threatened.

You just dont get it.
A scientific idea and the religous ideas that you are encumbered with are not in the same plane.

You specific problem, davidylan, the reason that you more prone to personal attacks is that you use your religiously encumbered mind to make scientific arguments, thereby making a great fool of yourself each time.

You, yourself have said that religious belief should never be expected to be irrational becuase it relies on things that are not rational, faith.
then why do you always conflate and convolute your faith with your scientific vocation , which requires non-compromise use of rationality ?

your response is once again heavy on personal attacks and precious little substance. Here you are afforded one more opportunity to discuss the scientific basis of the thread and you fall short again. You say this - The article, being a new scientific idea, has not in one nullified all that is already assumed to be scientific facts, but rather, is a welcome compliment that may answer or shed some light on hitherto scientific questions.

Lets just take the highlights first... the very title of the article you posted says this - No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning. How on earth can you claim that the article is simply complimenting what is "already assumed to be scientific facts" when it is CLEARLY postulating a completely different paradigm? Are we whistling past ourselves here or is the problem that you are too wedded to the anti-god dogma to be able to see past the incongruous nature of your own arguments? I'm at complete loss here... and that is why threads like this are doomed to fail. For there is never any attempt to discuss the science on its merits... more often than not, 90% of the posts simply devolve to personal insults from those who whine about how thoughtless religious people can be.

jayriginal:


Isnt that the difference between a mind open to lies as opposed to one closed by truth? child-like faith?

What he actually means.

plaetton:


We expect butter, not necessarily agreeable, but robust and intellectually sounder arguments from you in the areas of science and theology.
Instead, we get same old bible school trash we already get from pentecostal half retards.
This is why we all question your academic credentials.
Step up your game or quit engaging in arguments where faith is not an issue.

the problem is that what you call call "bible school thrash" basically equates to anything you don't agree with. That insult has always been your go-to excuse to not have to deal with science that flies in the face of your own beliefs.

I have searched the entire length of this three page thread... where are the robust and intellectually sound arguments from you justifying the thread? basically all you did was copy paste a link and then run down everyone else who does not agree with you.

plaetton:
^^^^
For example.

If you repeat that Phys.org is an atheist website, then I realized it was a waste of time even engaging you.
That is a cop out that proves that you more threatened by the article than what you may learn from it.

Once again, you betrayed that you were coming from a position of irrationality.

No person with a grade 10 education can say something as utterly shameful and ridiculous.

Basically we are going round in circles because you prefer to major in trivialities... that way you dont actually have to discuss the science. I'm not sure why calling phys.org is an atheist website (if at all i did, which i doubt) is of any relevance other than as an excuse. It is your duty to tell us exactly why the argument they put out is scientifically sound and (back to ooman's question) how it relates to prior theories of the BB for which the CMBR has been postulated as evidence for.

Davidylan. I doubt if you read the article from an objective scientific angle. You had lied to yourself that it came from an atheist website. That informed your judgment and subsequent attacks.
Ooman for example, read it and asked good relevant questions.
I say this because it is obvious you missed so many points in the article and even my own take on it.

plaetton:


We expect butter, not necessarily agreeable, but robust and intellectually sounder arguments from you in the areas of science and theology.
Instead, we get same old bible school trash we already get from pentecostal half retards.
This is why we all question your academic credentials.
Step up your game or quit engaging in arguments where faith is not an issue.

At no point in this thread have i advanced faith in any way. Again a poor cop-out from you. I have preferred instead to debate the science ONLY. You make it a faith issue because that is the only way you can say anything without having to reveal your lack of substance when it comes to the science. If i should not, virtually none of your fellow atheists here have a clue what the thread is about and you have not seemed to help them get a clue either. If faith is not an issue then why is the thread here (the religious section) in the first place? I thought we already had a science board?

davidylan:


the problem is that what you call call "bible school thrash" basically equates to anything you don't agree with. That insult has always been your go-to excuse to not have to deal with science that flies in the face of your own beliefs.

I have searched the entire length of this three page thread... where are the robust and intellectually sound arguments from you justifying the thread? basically all you did was copy paste a link and then run down everyone else who does not agree with you.

Agree with me on what? What have I postulated that I needed people to agree with me.?

Sorry. But you're not intelligent if this what you got from the thread.

Everything for you is atheists for or against. For you, atheists are your greatest existential threat.
You betray yourself.

plaetton:
Davidylan. I doubt if you read the article from an objective scientific angle. You had lied to yourself that it came from an atheist website. That informed your judgment and subsequent attacks.
Ooman for example, read it and asked good relevant questions.
I say this because it is obvious you missed so many points in the article and even my own take on it.

I read nothing of substance from you on the topic (which is a shame). You had only two posts directly on topic, the very third thread devolved into a shouting match on the scientific rationality of the creation theory (which is not the topic of the thread). I read the article as objectively as is possible... i found nothing that challenged my original take of all other similar theories. You didnt seem to provide any reason for why we should take the theory seriously at all...

Again, your yawn-inducing persistence in bringing up my take on whether phys.org is an atheist website is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do with the substance of the thread. Perhaps you want to spend more time on the science instead?

plaetton:


Agree with me on what? What have I postulated that I needed people to agree with me.?

Sorry. But you're not intelligent if this what you got from the thread.

if you didnt postulate anything then on what basis are you asking for a robust analysis of the science here?

plaetton:
Everything for you is atheists for or against. For you, atheists are your greatest existential threat.
You betray yourself.

if your third post on this very thread is anything to go about... then everything for you seems to be creationists for or against (the very title of this thread already involves creationists). If this was purely about the science then i would have expected it to be in the science section and not the religion section. The irony seems to escape you actually. shocking.