1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay"Before the Big Bang, something, the singularity was there correct?" English?
Before the Big Bang, something, the singularity was there correct?
Kelly[/b]
Did I hear sometime someone was complaining about my English? 😵And I don't even have English as my native tounge...?
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo I complain about your brain dead posts. I do not belittle anyone
"Before the Big Bang, something, the singularity was there correct?" English?
Did I hear sometime someone was complaining about my English? 😵And I don't even have English as my native tounge...?
at any time for saying something a little wrong unless I'm getting
from them, brain farts happen to us all, points that they bring up and
promote are fair game in my opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, that is the break down in the whole argument or hypothesis as
Keep in mind that this is a hypothesis we are discussing.
In the hypothesis, at t=0 there is a singularity. There is no 'before' t=0.
far as I'm concern. There was no time no singularity, then there was;
it sort of smacks of a hole in the process as far as I'm concern. Which
is why I said creation has no equal, science does not and cannot
offer anything to describe this no "before" time, as I pointed out
before once you have an event, you have a before, during, and after
and you lose me on denying that here. This is just like the no designer
for design statement that is being offered up here, or the selection
without a selector in natural selection, the words mean something but
we cannot allow for that meaning to actually stand as is.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. That is the breakdown in the whole communication between the two groups in this discussion. I (and others who agree with me) have made it abundantly clear many many times that there was no 'before' and your talk of "There was no time no singularity, then there was" is incorrect and clearly not part of the hypothesis at all. Yet you and knightmeister completely refuse to see that and simply keep repeating it without justification.
Yea, that is the break down in the whole argument or hypothesis as
far as I'm concern. There was no time no singularity, then there was;
it sort of smacks of a hole in the process as far as I'm concern.
No, it smacks of a deliberate attempt at creating a strawman.
Which is why I said creation has no equal,
And you are wrong. There are hundreds of tales of gods making the world. All equally ridiculous.
science does not and cannot offer anything to describe this no "before" time,
What? What is a 'no before time' and why should anyone want to describe it? It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
as I pointed out before once you have an event, you have a before, during, and after
Quite true, and I agreed with you. I also pointed out that t=0 is not an event.
and you lose me on denying that here.
I did not deny it. I quite clearly said that I agree with it.
This is just like the no designer
for design statement that is being offered up here, or the selection
without a selector in natural selection, the words mean something but
we cannot allow for that meaning to actually stand as is.
Kelly
And you are yet to answer my question regarding the volcano.
But your argument here is invalid as it is based on the premise that I have used the word 'event' when I quite clearly have not. Basically you are using a strawman.
Interestingly, in constructing your strawman argument you have actually contradicted your 'design' claim, as you want me to use the word 'event' for an entity that I do not think suits it.
ps who said Natural Selection has no selector?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…There was no time no singularity, THEN there was;..… (my emphasis)
Yea, that is the break down in the whole argument or hypothesis as
far as I'm concern. There was no time no singularity, then there was;
it sort of smacks of a hole in the process as far as I'm concern. Which
is why I said creation has no equal, science does not and cannot
offer anything to describe this no "before" time, as I pointed out
before once y ...[text shortened]... e words mean something but
we cannot allow for that meaning to actually stand as is.
Kelly
The “THEN there was” implies that there was a “before” (which there wasn’t according to the main-stream big bang theory).
…This is just like the no designer
for design statement that is being offered up here, or the selection
without a selector in natural selection,..…
“the selection without a selector IN natural selection”? obviously the “selector” IS natural selection -it isn’t something separate that is “IN” natural selection.
-of course, you will now “argue” that because, according to the English dictionary (that only gives STANDARD meanings), “selector” MUST imply somebody making a selection -no matter what the context nor how stupidly unreasonable it is to insist on that. In a narrow context we can assign a non-standard meaning to the word “selector” and the word “design” and any other word and there is no “law of logic” that says we cannot do that.
Can you give a LOGICAL argument that explains why giving a non-standard meaning to the word in a narrow context is logically flawed/wrong?
Originally posted by KellyJayMay I remind you that religion is chock full of words whose standard English meaning is not being used. For example the phrase 'life after death' just doesn't work.
This is just like the no designer
for design statement that is being offered up here, or the selection
without a selector in natural selection, the words mean something but
we cannot allow for that meaning to actually stand as is.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are I quite right, I disagree with you! There is nothing logical
No. That is the breakdown in the whole communication between the two groups in this discussion. I (and others who agree with me) have made it abundantly clear many many times that there was no 'before' and your talk of "There was no time no singularity, then there was" is incorrect and clearly not part of the hypothesis at all. Yet you and knightmeister y that I do not think suits it.
ps who said Natural Selection has no selector?
about there was nothing, and then there was something (singularity)
if that is your stance we are and will remain in a state of
disagreement.
Nothing about sounds reasonable to me in the least, even if I give
you no time before the singularity (which is not logical) you still have
the passage of time during the singularities existence before the Big
Bang, you cannot deny that time passage too do you? The reason I
ask this is, it points again back to the singularities unstable existence
when that started since something was either acting upon it, or it was
going through a process of change that caused the Big Bang.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo straw man here, the issue is quite profound and you ignore it,
No. That is the breakdown in the whole communication between the two groups in this discussion. I (and others who agree with me) have made it abundantly clear many many times that there was no 'before' and your talk of "There was no time no singularity, then there was" is incorrect and clearly not part of the hypothesis at all. Yet you and knightmeister y that I do not think suits it.
ps who said Natural Selection has no selector?
which is you got nothing, then everything without an explanation as
to how that came about. That isn't a straw man that is the argument.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know there are hundreds of religions that speak about creation,
No. That is the breakdown in the whole communication between the two groups in this discussion. I (and others who agree with me) have made it abundantly clear many many times that there was no 'before' and your talk of "There was no time no singularity, then there was" is incorrect and clearly not part of the hypothesis at all. Yet you and knightmeister ...[text shortened]... y that I do not think suits it.
ps who said Natural Selection has no selector?
and every single one of them has something science doesn't, an
explanation on the beginning of all things, simply put science isn't
even in the discussion with respect to the beginning of all things.
That said it doesn’t mean they are all right, but they speak to the
matter, science does not, it either ignores, or dismisses it out of hand.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are talking about an event, the Big Bang is an event, and for
No. That is the breakdown in the whole communication between the two groups in this discussion. I (and others who agree with me) have made it abundantly clear many many times that there was no 'before' and your talk of "There was no time no singularity, then there was" is incorrect and clearly not part of the hypothesis at all. Yet you and knightmeister y that I do not think suits it.
ps who said Natural Selection has no selector?
that matter so is the singularity since it was under going change
from one state to another, which resulted in the Big Bang, They are
events/processes that occurred.
With respect to natural selection having no selector you have some
thing actually making choices on selections, or do you have a process
which is life playing out where some live and some die without
anyone actually making selections?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadLife after death works just fine, since our lives here end in our physical
May I remind you that religion is chock full of words whose standard English meaning is not being used. For example the phrase 'life after death' just doesn't work.
death and the life afterward continues on spiritually.
Kelly