Originally posted by twhiteheadNo the kitchen sieve is not selecting anything, the items that make
No, the singularity is not an event as I have repeatedly stated. The only reason you want to call it an event is that you want to then use the definition of the word to make further claims. That is circular logic is it not? If the word can be applied then surely the properties that the word implies have already been agreed have they not? If you need the w ...[text shortened]... r is intelligence or even intent. Animals can select, machines can select, processes can select.
it through the sieve are not selected, they simply fall through while
others do not. Choices are not made there, a choice or a selection is
when with intent a choice, or selection is made and something is
picked out of the available possible choices for some reason or
another. Which again has evolution co-opting design terms, and
I believe for a very good reason, they recognize the issues of an
aimless process coming up with the most functionally complex
reproducing systems we are aware of.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, saying something over and over does not make your statement
I have said it over and over and over in this thread. If time begins at t=0 then that is not equivalent to getting something from nothing. Both you and knightmeister either can't or won't see the difference, and the thing that made me think that in knightmeister case it was a won't was the way he avoided any questions that highlighted his error.
any more true or false. I don't see the difference because you are
simply repeating the same falsehood over and over.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo everything came from nothing?
It didn't come from anything. But that is not, I repeat not, equivalent to "it came from nothing". It did not come. Something can only 'come' if there is time in which to 'come' and there was no time before the singularity - there was no 'before' - there is no 'was' - there isn't even a 'nothing'.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have an unstable singularity, can it be eternal since it was the
It didn't come from anything. But that is not, I repeat not, equivalent to "it came from nothing". It did not come. Something can only 'come' if there is time in which to 'come' and there was no time before the singularity - there was no 'before' - there is no 'was' - there isn't even a 'nothing'.
material for the Big Bang? What caused this singularity to blow up?
Did something happened to it, either by an internal force or an
outside force acting upon it? It did change after all, and if it is
changing, can it be an eternal anything?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, it seems to be a common one for creationist to arrogantly belittle top scientists and others that understand more about science than they do just because they point out the fact that, according to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “before” the big bang.
Seems to be a common one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI am afraid it is quite clearly you that has his head firmly in the ground. It has been repeated over and over and over by a number of people in this thread to the point where you really have no excuse of not having read it at least once, yet you choose to simply ignore the statement and repeat the strawman. The hypothesis is that time started at t=0. There is no such thing as before t=0, there is not such thing as 'at one point there was no singularity'. What is particularly poor logic on your part is that you seek to call it an event solely for the purpose of using the word to then claim the existence of the 'at one point there was no singularity.'
You are sticking your head in the ground here over this. The event
was at one point there was no singularity then there was, that is
an event.
The singularity itself is an item in flux, it was in one state
then the big bang occurs and its no longer in that state. You may
want to say there wasn't an event there,
I never said there wasn't an event there.
Because you hide that 'event' from your logic you than go on as if
your 'beliefs' about the beginning are completely logical when in fact
they are, NOT.
Kelly
None of this discussion constitutes 'belief' on my part. It is merely a hypothesis. You have failed to point out any logical errors in the hypothesis which is why you repeatedly resort to attacking it with strawmen and false claims about what I have said.
Originally posted by KellyJayGo ahead, cover your eyes and ears and hope that it will all go away.
So everything came from nothing?
Kelly
I have stated my hypothesis in the clearest words I know how, and repeated again and again and again that everything did not come from nothing, and you ask the question again as if you didn't read the post you are replying to? You clearly do not want to know what I am saying because you are afraid of it for some reason - or at least I can think of no other explanation for someone behaving that way. Do you have another explanation for your odd behavior? Did you truly not see the answer to your question in my post?
Originally posted by twhitehead…Did you truly not see the answer to your question in my post?..…
Go ahead, cover your eyes and ears and hope that it will all go away.
I have stated my hypothesis in the clearest words I know how, and repeated again and again and again that everything did not come from nothing, and you ask the question again as if you didn't read the post you are replying to? You clearly do not want to know what I am saying because yo ...[text shortened]... xplanation for your odd behavior? Did you truly not see the answer to your question in my post?
Perhaps he only sees what he wants to see?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are so full of it, I am not belittling anyone, I'm asking questions
Yes, it seems to be a common one for creationist to arrogantly belittle top scientists and others that understand more about science than they do just because they point out the fact that, according to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “before” the big bang.
and stating that some of the answers I'm being given are not up to
snuff with respect to the questions. You should spend more time
thinking about the subject matter and less time worried about people
who are not here, who no one is talking about let along belittling.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you have your singularity that is causeless sitting in a grand area
I am afraid it is quite clearly you that has his head firmly in the ground. It has been repeated over and over and over by a number of people in this thread to the point where you really have no excuse of not having read it at least once, yet you choose to simply ignore the statement and repeat the strawman. The hypothesis is that time started at t=0. The ...[text shortened]... atedly resort to attacking it with strawmen and false claims about what I have said.
of void, it either had something act upon it, or it was ever changing,
and you are claiming that it was timeless? That is your before time
item, something in a state of change?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes , we know that time as we know did not exist "before" the big bang because the big bang represents the start of time as we know it.
Yes, it seems to be a common one for creationist to arrogantly belittle top scientists and others that understand more about science than they do just because they point out the fact that, according to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “before” the big bang.
But this of course does not exclude the possibility of anything existing outside of the boundaries of the known universe or without a reliance on space/time. You might say that nothing can exist unless it exists "in time" but we already went doen that road and you had to adjust your statements (graciously I might add) because I showed logically that the point t=0 cannot exist within time.
It seems to me that we cannot say with any certainty that this Universe is all that there is. To claim so is just a statement of faith. Asking what came "before" the big bang may be a clumsy question , but there aren't any questions we can ask that don't use time based language so we have to make do with the language we have at our disposal. It seems just pragmatic to do so.