Originally posted by KellyJayIt's amazing how much you know about your god, so now the whole universe means nothing to him and since we are part of that universe then it stands to reason we mean nothing to it either. I'm glad you finally realize that. Who knows, maybe you will become an independent thinker yet.
You know enough about the universe to say it is beyond God, I actually
believe God is beyond you and the universe is nothing to Him.
Kelly
You however, are sidestepping my observations rather nicely, namely that you have no problem with any other aspect of science but the one saying how old the earth is and evolution. It is your blind side, you are unable to consider that 500 years of science might be right and you might be tragically wrong. Do you believe in the devil too?
Originally posted by KellyJayI put up the conversation of ours on our ntice board at work, just to see the reactions. "What is a singularity mady of?" I got a few laughs. But also a discussion at the coffe table: What to do with people who clearly don't know, and clearly don't want to know? Interesting discussion, indeed.
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
The question is funny, and I'll give you an equally funny answer:
Q: What is a singularity made of? A: It's made of Swedish pine wood. It's was chopped from trees at the far north, where no man lives.
Q: Where did it came from? A: From the local building wood store.
Q: Where is it now? A: Noone knows. It was stolen and is probably heading to China.
Well, we laughed some more, but seriosly, why do some people think they know a lot more than they actually do. The information is out in the internet, a few mouse clicks away. Wikipedia is a good start. The bible says nothing, because it is not a religious thing. So why do religious people pretend that they know what singularities when they actually don't?
Now I ask you an equally stupid question:
Q: What colour has god's eyes?
Ah, you don't know? Then you know nothing!!! 🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…"WHERE"
"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 mov ...[text shortened]... as it all compressed and
another bang? That would imply time ticking away wouldn’t it?
Kelly
Well I can put my wallet in desk drawer and that is where my wallet is, .…
Yes, and there is 3D space and points of reference outside that desk drawer.
…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.
......
The space in the universe is finite and yet unbounded. If it wasn’t for the rapid expansion of the universe, if you could make a spaceship travel in a perfect straight line in the 3D space for long enough, it will eventually arrive back to the point in space where it started. The same would apply to a beam of light.
The problem here is that you are imagining some kind of spherical “boundary” in 3 dimensions around the universe and, as this universe expands, this spherical “boundary” has to “push” itself into some kind of 3D space surrounding it. But, not only is here no kind of 3D space surrounding it, there is no boundary! Instead the expansion that occurs here only consists of an increase in the total 3D space contained WITHIN it.
In practical terms, if it wasn’t for the continues expansion of the universe, if you shone a beam of light in one direction and it continued unobstructed for long enough, it would arrive back at the point in space where it was shone from! -But the point here is that the more 3D space there in in the universe, the longer it would take for that bean of light to arrive back to its origin.
So as for you claim that: “You can only expand if you are moving into new areas” ; that only works within part of the 3D space within the universe but not all the 3D space in the universe as a whole. The only way the total amount of 3D space in the universe can increase is not by “expanding into new areas” for there are no new areas to expand into! Instead, the only way the total amount of 3D space in the universe can increase is for the 3D space ITSELF to expand.
…. What force would cause an explosion on a piece of everything that didn’t have any forces being applied to it? ….
How do you conclude that it “didn’t have any forces being applied to it”? Sure there are no forces being applied from outside of it for there is no “outside“-but forces can be implied that come from within it.
“force” is the “push” and “pull” in physics. Any “force” would be generated from WITHIN the universe -including any force that causes the 3D space within the universe to expand.
…So were there processes taking place with in the singularity that at one moment has it all compressed and another bang?
. …
“all compressed” by what? It wasn’t ever “compressed” by something -it merely started off with an extremely high energy density. The problem is you are imagining an “outside” of the universe where you could have something “pressing” onto it from that “outside”.
Originally posted by sonhouseNot at all, I have issues where we attempt to pass off beliefs as facts
It's amazing how much you know about your god, so now the whole universe means nothing to him and since we are part of that universe then it stands to reason we mean nothing to it either. I'm glad you finally realize that. Who knows, maybe you will become an independent thinker yet.
You however, are sidestepping my observations rather nicely, namely that y ...[text shortened]... of science might be right and you might be tragically wrong. Do you believe in the devil too?
and a point of view as something more than it is. I do not have issue
one with science, I do have issues where people lump their beliefs
into factual statements as if they are one and the same. I don't see
500 years of science telling me anything, I see you attempting tell
me something! When I cannot prove to you you something is true,
and yet I believe it anyway I call that faith on my part. When you
introduce things that are basically built upon assumptions and pass
them off as if they are facts, I have to say you have left the realm
of facts and moved into faith as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am coming to expect nothing more from you.
I put up the conversation of ours on our ntice board at work, just to see the reactions. "What is a singularity mady of?" I got a few laughs. But also a discussion at the coffe table: What to do with people who clearly don't know, and clearly don't want to know? Interesting discussion, indeed.
The question is funny, and I'll give you an equally funny a ...[text shortened]... on:
Q: What colour has god's eyes?
Ah, you don't know? Then you know nothing!!! 🙂
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
[b]…"WHERE"
Well I can put my wallet in desk drawer and that is where my wallet is, .…
Yes, and there is 3D space and points of reference outside that desk drawer.
…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 ...[text shortened]... utside” of the universe where you could have something “pressing” onto it from that “outside”.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
You have a starting place for your singularity where the state of it
changes due to extremely high energy density and time passes and
it changes to the Bang! So how did it start with that? Where again did
it come from?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayLike I said, you only have problems where it comes to the failed belief system you are blinded by. Many things is science can be taken as fact like water always boils at 100 degrees C at sea level. You take that as a fact.
Not at all, I have issues where we attempt to pass off beliefs as facts
and a point of view as something more than it is. I do not have issue
one with science, I do have issues where people lump their beliefs
into factual statements as if they are one and the same. I don't see
500 years of science telling me anything, I see you attempting tell
me somet ...[text shortened]... are facts, I have to say you have left the realm
of facts and moved into faith as well.
Kelly
But when it comes to science that pegs the age of the earth or shows how evolution works, you have a blind spot. It's really that simple. There is a phrase bandied about that fits you 100%: Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up.
You keep on your well worn track that what science has learned about the age of the earth as simply a belief system mainly so you can keep your beliefs safe, you are split tongue, on the one hand your belief system is holy and unwavering but what you pronounce as our 'belief system' as ravaged with uncertainty, which allows you to keep your own belief system in your own mind as morally superior and still holy.
You have a split personality in that you think you are actually causing strife in our 'beliefs' while at the same time internally vouchsafing your own. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is when our scientific investigations done by ten different methods arrive at a date that statistically pegs the age of the earth everyone is in agreement and what you say amounts to a fringe of obfuscation bound to remain in the fringe of human experience while the real world goes on quite nicely without your religiously motivated doubt. There is agreement in the world of science, when a new theory begins to take hold, it fully wins when the opponents simply die.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
You have a starting place for your singularity where the state of it
changes due to extremely high energy density and time passes ...[text shortened]... nd
it changes to the Bang! So how did it start with that? Where again did
it come from?
Kelly[/b]
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
. …
This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reject this would be to reject the whole of modern science.
…You have a starting place for your singularity where the state of it
changes due to extremely high energy density and time passes and
it changes to the Bang!…
No, that is not what the theory says. The rapid expansion happened right from the start.
…So how did it start with that? .…
Are you asking here what is the “cause”? I have already answered that.
…WHERE again did
it come from? ...... (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.
I know you claim not to be "anti-science" KJ, but seriously alot of your posts do come across that way. If you were disagreeing and questioining a new idea with logic and reason, you would actually be a good scientist! It's part of the peer review process to question peoples work. But - here and in other threads you ignore vast and varied lines of evidence from independent resources, which all point to the same conclusions. It doesn't ever matter, you have your agenda and your belief / faith, so you can't accept anything that may question that. This makes you either:
1. Obtuse and completely arrogant.
2. Stupid.
3. Far more intelligent than the sum of all collective findings from scientists over the last few hundred years, and of course you can provide us with the evidence why they are all wrong?? We won't hold our breath to receive this evidence, you never provide anything.
4. Just anti science.
If you don't want people to think you are anti-science, then provide some evidence when YOU CLAIM the science is wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedI think it boils down to (in KJ's mind): You have your beliefs and I have mine. He equates knowledge hard won over centuries of work by the smartest scientists ever to live so far as making statements that we take as a belief system, so he can hang on to his own beliefs and not seem to himself hypocritical. But it is selective. He would never argue that you can take naturally occuring substances like sulpher, urine and lye or whatever it is that makes gunpowder, that the combination of the three ingrediants is not going to make gunpowder or some other explosive because it was never mentioned in the bible so it would never conflict. He has a narrow window of what we would call anti-science which is just the beginning of the universe, how old it is, and evolution. I think outside of those two taboo subjects, he would listen and understand every point made without argument unless that argument flew in the face of his own personal experience.
I know you claim not to be "anti-science" KJ, but seriously alot of your posts do come across that way. If you were disagreeing and questioining a new idea with logic and reason, you would actually be a good scientist! It's part of the peer review process to question peoples work. But - here and in other threads you ignore vast and varied lines of eviden ink you are anti-science, then provide some evidence when YOU CLAIM the science is wrong.
He simply has a blind spot where he resists any effort people might bring up in those two area's I mentioned. He will obfuscate, redirect, introduce straw men, introduce doubt as if he were qualified to do so, and only admitting he thought the universe and Earth to be less than 10K years old only after months of picking and prodding by the fellow posters like Fabian, me, and many others. So we know where he stands on what he thinks is the age of the earth, and it being only 10K years old, ANY science done that refutes that # is simply another belief system and since it is only a belief, his belief is just as valid as the scientific view.
In his mind, his belief and our 'belief' will always be just that, two different sets of belief's. I doubt there is ANY evidence we could present that would change his mind, he is too blinded by his faith to see any truth other than the one spoon fed to him by his religious mentors, whom we have to admit, have done a bang up job of convincing people of the correctness of their religion for the last 2000 years, thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
It's amazing to me with all the discoveries made of the brain and how it is so plastic, that it can be also at the same time stuck in a groove that it will die with like the white supremecists who will die with the idea whites are pure and blacks are from the devil or whatever is their dogma. It seems the brain CAN be plastic but can also be so stuck in a groove it can never dig out no matter how much counter evidence is put forward, such evidence only makes them dig in harder. Such people are suggestable and religious leaders take full advantage of that fact and when they have fully converted, there is no going back, the Mafia of God.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedI've met these kind of people in many occations. On girl at the street tried to convince me the christian superiority. She claimed the intelligence behind the creation: "God created sun to shine at the day to give us wormth and light, and the moon at the night so it wouldn't be too dark!" Yeah, right, I bet she didn't even knew about the copernicus revolution. I wonder how she would explain a solar eclipse...
I know you claim not to be "anti-science" KJ, but seriously alot of your posts do come across that way. If you were disagreeing and questioining a new idea with logic and reason, you would actually be a good scientist! It's part of the peer review process to question peoples work. But - here and in other threads you ignore vast and varied lines of eviden ink you are anti-science, then provide some evidence when YOU CLAIM the science is wrong.
She was obviously an ignorant little creature, but she thought that she knew everything. But she was very sweetlooking, indeed, so I had a very interesting debate with her at the streetwalk, observing more than her retorics. But she wasn't anti-science, she didn't know what science was.
So when someone ask me "What is a singularity made of", then I cannot do anything else but laugh. "What colour has god in his eyes?" is an equally stupid question.
KellyJay is obviously anti-science, no question about that, having opinions of everything and agressively defending his opinions with his rather strange KJ-retorics, avoiding answering qeustions but accusing others not to answer his silly ones. But is he ignorant?
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't worry this FabianFnas pays no attention to what people say, he only likes talk.
You are such a hypocrite, do you see the title of this post? The thread
deals with someone questioning evolution having a bias. Did you see
how I initially responded to the thread? With just pointing out that
everyone brings to the table bias, assumptions and so on. The point
of this thread was to question someone because of their beliefs,
before the p ...[text shortened]... on evolution
should be questioned because of their bias and not their arguments
alone.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasWow you say as much stupidity on other threads as well. You think to ask, "What colour (color) has god in his eyes?" is the same as asking what the singularity was made of? I guess you don't understand the difference between a fundamental question and a trivial one.
I've met these kind of people in many occations. On girl at the street tried to convince me the christian superiority. She claimed the intelligence behind the creation: "God created sun to shine at the day to give us wormth and light, and the moon at the night so it wouldn't be too dark!" Yeah, right, I bet she didn't even knew about the copernicus revolu ...[text shortened]... ering qeustions but accusing others not to answer his silly ones. But is he ignorant?
2 edits
Originally posted by tautologyPerhaps you can supply the answers of one or both of these questions?
Wow you say as much stupidity on other threads as well. You think to ask, "What colour (color) has god in his eyes?" is the same as asking what the singularity was made of? I guess you don't understand the difference between a fundamental question and a trivial one.
KJ might need the help...
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree totally.
I think it boils down to (in KJ's mind): You have your beliefs and I have mine. He equates knowledge hard won over centuries of work by the smartest scientists ever to live so far as making statements that we take as a belief system, so he can hang on to his own beliefs and not seem to himself hypocritical. But it is selective. He would never argue that you ...[text shortened]... f that fact and when they have fully converted, there is no going back, the Mafia of God.
"The mafia of god" - I love that :0)
Conditioning of the brain at a young age can be a very powerful tool, which is obviously a good thing in most circumstances, but it does have the weakness of being open to abuse.