A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
Are you suggesting the age of the universe is after the big bang,
or when the singularity first came into being? I’d have to say the
beginning was at the start of the singularity not at the bang,
because all that is, is suppose to be in the singularity. So how do
you know when that came into being? While we are at it, how
do you know how that came into being, why did it come into
being, you know all the important questions?
Kelly

Strange questions from an anti-science YE creationist, don't you think?

I don't think you even know what a singularity is, nor comprehend even parts of the theory of BigBang. How can you discuss something that you don't know anything about?

Go to your bible and see what it says about singularities, and come back and tell us.

If you have read the posting you refer to, I don't say anything about what you're asking. I only say, that one study, often referred to, say that universe is 13.7 billion of years old, and a later one, as a curiositée, says that ist is 15.8 billion of years. With this I wanted to say that science is an evolving process. Science is that way, science isn't static, as creationists, as yourself, tend to say. Can we trust the latest one or do we trust the one before? Well, the future will tell.

I say universe is about 15 billion of years old, give or take a few billion of years. Only anti-science YE creationists says it's about 10 thousands years of age...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Strange questions from an anti-science YE creationist, don't you think?

I don't think you even know what a singularity is, nor comprehend even parts of the theory of BigBang. How can you discuss something that you don't know anything about?

Go to your bible and see what it says about singularities, and come back and tell us.

If you have read the ...[text shortened]... of years. Only anti-science YE creationists says it's about 10 thousands years of age...

Maybe it is very hard to understand that Science is solving questions regarding the "how", and that Philosophy is trying to find answers regarding the "why" based on the common "how". This is BTW the reason why Theology has nothing to do with Philosophy: Theology takes for granded its dogma and tries to prove it right by any means, surpassing the common sens, while Philosophy today seeks constantly for the deep understanding taking into account the common sens, without accepting nothing a priori, and refusing to be based on any kind of "authority";

Originally posted by black beetle
Maybe it is very hard to understand that Science is solving questions regarding the "how", and that Philosophy is trying to find answers regarding the "why" based on the common "how". This is BTW the reason why Theology has nothing to do with Philosophy: Theology takes for granded its dogma and tries to prove it right by any means, surpassing the common ...[text shortened]... without accepting nothing a priori, and refusing to be based on any kind of "authority";

I don't know much about philosophy. I just don't think we can, by thoughs alone, can deduce anything. Science can sometimes come up with contra-intuitive things, something that philosophy never can do, that seems to fit nicely by observations. Like quantum leaps, something we use everyday in light bulbs and transistors, and the wave/particle-duality and such.

I don't see anyone more anti-science than Young Earth Creationists. They don't know much about science, but yet, they trying to use (pseudo-)science to prove their creationism. They deny atomic theory, because radiology methods can prove the age of our solar system, yet they use the fruits of atomic theory every day not even knowing they do it. They just don't kno anything about science and scientific methods.

But philosophy, I don't know much about it. So I don't use philosophy to prove anything.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't know much about philosophy. I just don't think we can, by thoughs alone, can deduce anything. Science can sometimes come up with contra-intuitive things, something that philosophy never can do, that seems to fit nicely by observations. Like quantum leaps, something we use everyday in light bulbs and transistors, and the wave/particle-duality and s ...[text shortened]...
But philosophy, I don't know much about it. So I don't use philosophy to prove anything.

I agree with you FF.
Regarding Philosophy, it is a tool that helps you to realise what you know and what you ignore, nothing less and nothing more. You may try to use it in your everyday life (and confront BdN with his weapons) 😉

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…1. Yes, where did the Singularity come FROM which was my question. …(my emphasis)

Our universe (or the “singularity&rdquo😉 didn’t ”COME” from anything (or even "nothing"!). To “COME” from, there would have to be something existing “before” the universe for that universe to “COME” from. But, as the universe was the beginning of time, there was n ...[text shortened]... t what point in time did his “nothing” exist? -(remember; there was no “before” the big bang)[/b]

Where was the universe during the Big Bang? What was the setting?
I think your answer is very weak on where it came from.
You are telling me it came from neither nothing or something.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Strange questions from an anti-science YE creationist, don't you think?

I don't think you even know what a singularity is, nor comprehend even parts of the theory of BigBang. How can you discuss something that you don't know anything about?

Go to your bible and see what it says about singularities, and come back and tell us.

If you have read the of years. Only anti-science YE creationists says it's about 10 thousands years of age...

Go hide somewhere will you, you know what the singularity was
made of, where it came from, what was it sitting in when the Big bang
occured, this is supposed to be something you should be able to
talk about. Is crying about a Bible again is just a way to avoid
a hard questions? I doubt you comprehend those questions and you
are trying to act like you do, are you just someone who hides behind
insults to avoid an adult conversation. Is it possible for you to turn
off the insults to actually talk about something?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Strange questions from an anti-science YE creationist, don't you think?

I don't think you even know what a singularity is, nor comprehend even parts of the theory of BigBang. How can you discuss something that you don't know anything about?

Go to your bible and see what it says about singularities, and come back and tell us.

If you have read the ...[text shortened]... of years. Only anti-science YE creationists says it's about 10 thousands years of age...

Stay on topic will you, I am not promoting any age, I said the age
was the least important part of this discussion. Your views are the
ones under question here, and I'm not using the Bible to bash your
views, you are the only one bringing it into the conversation. The
Big Bang has some major holes in it to my thinking and if all you got
is to insult me to avoid the questions I am asking, it makes me
think I struck a nerve with you. Just answer the questions if possible
I do not think you can.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Go hide somewhere will you, you know what the singularity was
made of, where it came from, what was it sitting in when the Big bang
occured, this is supposed to be something you should be able to
talk about. Is crying about a Bible again is just a way to avoid
a hard questions? I doubt you comprehend those questions and you
are trying to act like you d ...[text shortened]... sation. Is it possible for you to turn
off the insults to actually talk about something?
Kelly

If you think that a singularity is made of something proves that you are not even close of what it is. Did you now that the North Pole is a singularity? No? Then read up a little.

So when you are trying to discuss things you know little of, in a way that shows your opinion is the best and others are not, you are not only show yourself as the anti-science you are, but also bring bad rep to all christians.

So, again, what does the bible say about singularities?

If you accuse me of not answering your questions, then you have to (1) answer my questions and not avoid them, and (2) formulate your question to me in a way so I clearly understand that you want an answer, and not some kind of anti-science retorical question,not demanding answers.

So what question do you have that you don't feel that I answer? Please, don't be shy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where was the universe during the Big Bang? What was the setting?
I think your answer is very weak on where it came from.
You are telling me it came from neither nothing or something.
Kelly

…WHERE was the universe during the Big Bang? .…(my emphasis)

“WHERE” in relation to what point of reference? There was no space or time outside the big bang and thus there is no “WHERE” or “position” it could be in! (just as there is no “WHERE” or “position” it could be in the present -you can only rationally talk about “WHERE” or “position” within the universe relative to some arbitrary point of reference in a frame of reference)

…What was the setting?......

What was its setting where? What was its setting when? Space and time didn’t exist outside of it so it didn’t have a “setting”.

…. I think your answer is very weak on where it came from. ….

My answer was it didn’t “come from” which means your question of “where it came from” is erroneous because it wrongly presupposes it either “came from somewhere” or it “came from something” or, even, it “came from nothing” -all of these possibilities are false because of the flawed presumption.

…You are telling me it came from neither nothing or something. …

Yes, that is because it didn’t “come” into existence from anything -not even “nothing”! -that’s because its existence had no kind of “cause” as we know it. To say it “come” into existence implies there was a point in time when it didn’t exist. But there was no “before” the big bang so there was no points in time when the universe didn’t exist.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you think that a singularity is made of something proves that you are not even close of what it is. Did you now that the North Pole is a singularity? No? Then read up a little.

So when you are trying to discuss things you know little of, in a way that shows your opinion is the best and others are not, you are not only show yourself as the anti-scien ...[text shortened]... wers.

So what question do you have that you don't feel that I answer? Please, don't be shy.

Answer my questions, I was asking you what it was made of, where it
was, where it came from, and all I get from you is go read up a little?
I'd say you have no clue and your desire to hide that is hidden in your
attempt to attack me, just admit you have no idea and be done with
it.

You want to talk about Bible text in the Science area? I was under the
impression this was an area where things we can test and observe were
discussed, is this just your fall back when you cannnot answer a question?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Answer my questions, I was asking you what it was made of, where it
was, where it came from, and all I get from you is go read up a little?
I'd say you have no clue and your desire to hide that is hidden in your
attempt to attack me, just admit you have no idea and be done with
it.

You want to talk about Bible text in the Science area? I was under th ...[text shortened]... observe were
discussed, is this just your fall back when you cannnot answer a question?
Kelly

There is no answer of what a singularity is made of, don't you see? It's a mathematical point. What is number three made up of, where did it came from? It's a meaningless question!

Taken from Wikipedia: "Mathematical singularity, a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined"

So if you ask meaningless questions, how can you think you can get meaningful answers? "What is a singularity made of?" Jeez... 😀

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…WHERE was the universe during the Big Bang? .…(my emphasis)

“WHERE” in relation to what point of reference? There was no space or time outside the big bang and thus there is no “WHERE” or “position” it could be in! (just as there is no “WHERE” or “position” it could be in the present -you can only rationally talk about “WHERE” or “position ...[text shortened]... here was no “before” the big bang so there was no points in time when the universe didn’t exist.[/b]

"WHERE"
Well I can put my wallet in desk drawer and that is where my wallet is,
if we were to discuss this singularity, and there was nothing out side
of the singularity how could it expand if the only place there is, is the
place where it is? You can only expand if you are moving into new
areas, if there are no areas to move into you do not get to move them.

Are you thinking these things through as you say them, “…it didn’t
“come” into existence from anything –not even “nothing”! Wow, you
can wrap your mind around that! I think that is the most illogical thing
I have ever heard in my whole life. You are being so inconsistent here
it isn’t even funny. The state of the universe was either in an
expanding state after your fairytale big bang, or it was compressed
into this fairytale thing you refer to as the singularity, but all that is
there, it is still there, just in another state or the other, and why is
that, where did it come from?

What force would cause an explosion on a piece of everything that
didn’t have any forces being applied to it? That too does not pass the
spell test either, it wouldn’t be like gravity, time, or some pressure
would come into play upon that singularity, it isn’t like the singularity
has anything outside of itself to apply pressure on or to release
pressure being applied to it. So were there processes taking place with
in the singularity that at one moment has it all compressed and
another bang? That would imply time ticking away wouldn’t it?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There is no answer of what a singularity is made of, don't you see? It's a mathematical point. What is number three made up of, where did it came from? It's a meaningless question!

Taken from Wikipedia: "Mathematical singularity, a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined"

So if you ask meaningless questions, how can you think you can get meaningful answers? "What is a singularity made of?" Jeez... 😀

It isn't meaningless, it is just beyond you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't meaningless, it is just beyond you.
Kelly

You prove to me, to everyone, that you don't have any idea of a singularity is. Why don't you even look it up yourself? Or is it beyond you?

If you want to ask something then the question must be meaningsful, don't you see? No, actually, you probably don't...

You are just not serious. You are anti-science. And itn this case, anti-mathematical.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You prove to me, to everyone, that you don't have any idea of a singularity is. Why don't you even look it up yourself? Or is it beyond you?

If you want to ask something then the question must be meaningsful, don't you see? No, actually, you probably don't...

You are just not serious. You are anti-science. And itn this case, anti-mathematical.

Nice try mate; however, as I was asking the questions and you jumped
in you either answer or not. I do not know what your singularity was
made of, I don't think you do either. You want to give it credit for the
full make up of the universe so I would have thought you'd at least
have a clue.
Kelly