- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI suppose you could have a few exceptions. Speculation would be more in the line of 'did the fruit tree evolve over millions of years, or did God create it?'...
LOL.
Suppose a scientist ponders this question: on the day before Adam was created, a piece of fruit from the tree of knowledge detached from its branch on the tree. Did it fall toward the ground or levitate in the air?
Are you saying that any answer is nothing more than speculation?
25 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am always faced with a dilemma whenever I argue with you.
I suppose you could have a few exceptions. Speculation would be more in the line of 'did the fruit tree evolve over millions of years, or did God create it?'...
I can concede that you are correct, and thereby look like an idiot myself, although I would at least be in plentiful company.
Or, I can persue the debate to demostrate that you are incorrect, but only at the risk of suffering an aneurysm from banging my head upon my desk in frustration from attempting to communicate with you.
Life is hard.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1) The Big Bang (a moniker placed on the theory by an early opponent of it) is not an explosion, but an expansion of space-time itself. Nothing can "fly out" of the "explosion" as that would mean it would leave the universe itself;
To recrap:
1) The Big Bang (a moniker placed on the theory by an early opponent of it) is not an explosion, but an expansion of space-time itself. Nothing can "fly out" of the "explosion" as that would mean it would leave the universe itself;
2) A photon is an elemantary particle travelling at the speed of light. It does not and ...[text shortened]... s him to be stupid. Bully for him, he's doing a fine job of accomplishing such a lofty mission.
Fine. But this one does not explain the origin of the universe. It is just another ad hoc theory placed onto of the original Big Bang theory.
2) A photon is an elementary particle travelling at the speed of light. It does not and cannot have a temperature;
I quote: "As the universe expands and cools, the average energy of a photon falls until eventually hydrogen atoms are able to form."
http://universe-review.ca/R05-04-powerspectrum.htm
And as Halitose has pointed out: "temperature" could imply the wavelength of the photon; and I am not the only one who uses 'temperature' to imply 'equivalent radiation energy' or wavelength.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=446
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/927626853.As.r.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae210.cfm
3) The Big Bang theory does not even attempt to explain the "creation" of matter; it holds that all matter (and everything else) was at a primordial singularity. If people want to speculate on what "created" the singularity, that's fine with the proponents of the Big bang theory but it ain't science.
So you mean that speculation that all the matter was at a primordial singularity 15 billions years ago is Science???
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou could think so for sure, I understand that. But do you think that simply imagining something can set a drug adict free from drugs?
[b]Sounds like ad hoc, to me. Used to be that God was in heaven, period.
I didn't say he wasn't. All I mean to say is that you probably won't see Heaven while sitting in an Airplane. 😉
And it's not at all possible you're imagining this?
You could think so for sure, I understand that. But do you think that simply imagining somethin ...[text shortened]... God, you will know it is Him. And I can guarentee you that your life will be radically changed.[/b]
It depends on what he's imagining, now, doesn't it? 😀
Sure. That is only one of the many miracles that happened in the Bible. There are still many happening today. If you don't believe me you are welcome to visit me on our Mission Station and see for yourself.
Really??? You have people splitting seas and such at your mission station? Believe me, I would very much like to see that.
The difference is that if you see, or hear God, you will know it is Him. And I can guarentee you that your life will be radically changed.
I can certainly imagine my life would change if I start hearing and seeing things.
---
I'm just kidding with you. No offense. Strike back at will. 😉
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothingIt depends on what he's imagining, now, doesn't it? 😀
You could think so for sure, I understand that. But do you think that simply imagining something can set a drug adict free from drugs?
It depends on what he's imagining, now, doesn't it? 😀
Sure. That is only one of the many miracles that happened in the Bible. There are still many happening today. If you don't believe me you are welcome ing and seeing things.
---
I'm just kidding with you. No offense. Strike back at will. 😉
😀 Yea. But I suppose if it was not God then he would just take it down as a heavy trip and continue with his drugs.
Really??? You have people splitting seas and such at your mission station? Believe me, I would very much like to see that.
😉 You get different types of miracles. Unfortunatley our Mission is in the middle of the bush and there are no seas to split 😀
I can certainly imagine my life would change if I start hearing and seeing things.
Are you deaf and blind? 😉 I'll pray for your healing... 😀
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot a single article you cited makes the ridiculous claim that a photon has a temperature; that is outright nonsense and ignorance. Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy.
[b]1) The Big Bang (a moniker placed on the theory by an early opponent of it) is not an explosion, but an expansion of space-time itself. Nothing can "fly out" of the "explosion" as that would mean it would leave the universe itself;
Fine. But this one does not explain the origin of the universe. It is just another ad hoc theory placed onto of ...[text shortened]... culation that all the matter was at a primordial singularity 15 billions years ago is Science???[/b]
The Big Bang theory, like all scientific theories, is an attempt to explain the observed data through the application of scientific principles. You are hostile to science and "naturalistic" explanations as you are a superstitious clown. The fact that all galaxies are redshifting and the existence of background radiation are powerful evidence that the universe expanded from a single point. Observations consistent with the Big Bang theory are coming in every day at an increased rate as our technological ability to collect it improve. A few thousand year old universe is a physical impossibility without arbitrarily changing around the speed of light at the whim of some, unseen Creator who would be going out of his way to trick us. There is no credible astronomer or physicist who believes that the universe is a few thousand years old; that's bloody nonsense for stubborn fools.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI would say ‘ad hoc’ often means the addition of corollary hypotheses or adjustment to a philosophical or scientific theory to save the theory from being falsified by compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Philosophers and scientists are often suspicious or skeptical of theories that rely on continual, inelegant ad hoc adjustments.
Does the phrase "ad hoc" mean anything to you other than a phrase that you often see used in creationist refutations of the big bang? If so, please elaborate on what you think it means.
A good example would be the “inflationary universe”.
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy."
Not a single article you cited makes the ridiculous claim that a photon has a temperature; that is outright nonsense and ignorance. Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy.
The Big Bang theory, like all scientific theori ...[text shortened]... ieves that the universe is a few thousand years old; that's bloody nonsense for stubborn fools.
They are learning from you, marauder ! Congratulations !
25 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
I would say ‘ad hoc’ often means the addition of corollary hypotheses or adjustment to a philosophical or scientific theory to save the theory from being falsified by compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Philosophers and scientists are often suspicious or skeptical of theories that rely on continual, inelegant ad hoc adjustments.
A good example would be the “inflationary universe”.
I wanted to know what it means to you. I could visit Wikipedia myself if I wanted its opinion on the matter.
As I suspected, I don't think it holds any meaning for you at all. You are such a fraud. How many times must you get caught at this game before you start composing your own posts?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNot a single article you cited makes the ridiculous claim that a photon has a temperature; that is outright nonsense and ignorance. Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy.
Not a single article you cited makes the ridiculous claim that a photon has a temperature; that is outright nonsense and ignorance. Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy.
The Big Bang theory, like all scientific theori ...[text shortened]... ieves that the universe is a few thousand years old; that's bloody nonsense for stubborn fools.
Are you blind or something?
I quote: "As the universe expands the photons are shifted to longer wavelengths and the 'temperature' of the photons cools."
I am not referring to an elementary, subatomic particle.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=446
The Big Bang theory, like all scientific theories, is an attempt to explain the observed data through the application of scientific principles. You are hostile to science and "naturalistic" explanations as you are a superstitious clown. The fact that all galaxies are redshifting and the existence of background radiation are powerful evidence that the universe expanded from a single point. Observations consistent with the Big Bang theory are coming in every day at an increased rate as our technological ability to collect it improve. A few thousand year old universe is a physical impossibility without arbitrarily changing around the speed of light at the whim of some, unseen Creator who would be going out of his way to trick us. There is no credible astronomer or physicist who believes that the universe is a few thousand years old; that's bloody nonsense for stubborn fools.
It you read my first posts you will notice that I have dealt with redshifting and all the other “observations”. You continue to use ad hominems, and you continue to make unsubstantiated claims.
I will not waste more time with you. You have been damaged beyond repair.
Cheers.