Noah's flood real

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 172)

Showing posts 3,421 - 3,440 of4,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3654
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is 13.7 billion years old. What was there when time did not exist?
Again, why do you think there was *anything* when time did not exist?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3655
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is 13.7 billion years old. What was there when time did not exist?
What is north of the north pole?

Is there a place, that is north of the north pole? No?

There's your answer: it is meaningless to speak of "time before time".

Just as it is meaningless to speak of "north of the north pole"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3656
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Really? Care to be more specific? For example, do you have a criticism of the age of the universe based on the cosmic background radiation that explains the observed characteristics of that radiation in another way?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3657
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am suggesting that. Do you have any evidence for any other viewpoint?
Nope. Just wondering how scientific it is for nothing to explode and create everything?

At no known time has nothing ever exploded. So we're to expect that it only happened once?

By this theory every empty truck needs to have a explosive warning sticker on it.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3658
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Again, why do you think there was *anything* when time did not exist?
Because of other dimensions.

Does anything in 2 D really exist?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3659
May 5, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>What is north of the north pole?

Is there a place, that is north of the north pole? No?

There's your answer: it is meaningless to speak of "time before time".

Just as it is meaningless to speak of "north of the north pole"
I'm not talking if time before time. Clearly I stated when there was no time this in our dimension could refer to anytime there was no time. Enjoy the pun.

When there was no time nothing known in our universe existed per you.

The absents of everything can't create everything in an explosion or in any other way. It's a "myth"
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3660
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Care to be more specific? For example, do you have a criticism of the age of the universe based on the cosmic background radiation that explains the observed characteristics of that radiation in another way?
Yup. God did it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3661
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. God did it.
Sorry, but that isn't a testable, specific prediction about the nature of the background radiation, why it should exist, why it should be a blackbody radiation to within 1 part in 100,000, and why the detailed differences from that blackbody radiation should be what they are. The Big bang scenario answers ALL of these questions in precise, mathematical detail.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3662
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Just wondering how scientific it is for nothing to explode and create everything?
Considering that science works by looking at data, making hypotheses, and testing the specific predictions of the hypotheses against that data, the overall Big Bang theory: that the universe is expanding, that it was previously much hotter and denser than it is now, that the background radiation was formed when the universe cooled enough that matter was no longer incandescent, that nuclear reactions in the early universe formed the elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium, with those fusion reactions cut short by the expansion and cooling, that the density fluctuations early in the expansion were the seeds for modern galaxies, and that the universe is billions of years old; this theory is solid.

What, if anything, was before the current expansion, the basic Big bang scenario does not address. There are several possibilities, but these are all *extensions* of the basic theory to include quantum effects. And yes, in some of these extensions, the universe is a run-away quantum fluctuation. We have measured smaller quantum fluctuations in the lab.
At no known time has nothing ever exploded. So we're to expect that it only happened once?
By this theory every empty truck needs to have a explosive warning sticker on it.
So you don't understand what the Big Bang scenario actually says, as opposed to a 5th grade popularization of that theory.*If* the universe came from a quantum fluctuation (which is only one scenario), then the current density of the universe is way too large for the stability of any new fluctuation. Now, it is *possible* that as the universe expands and the density decreases, that eventually such stabilization will happen again, but this is speculation about what would be *trillions* of years in the future.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3663
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of other dimensions.
Does anything in 2 D really exist?
Just like three dimensions exists as sections of four (or more) dimensions, so does 2 dimensions. The problem is that you seem to misunderstand what 'other dimensions means in this context. it is *not* the same as other universes. If you want *that*, then we can talk about multiverse theories. But that is a different thing. Furthermore, other than the fourth dimension of time, no other dimension has actual evidence showing it exists. So you are still lacking in anything substantiating your ideas.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3664
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
If you have no evidence, then your ideas are pure speculation. But in your case, the ideas actually contradict known data and experimental results.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3665
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
The absents of everything can't create everything in an explosion or in any other way. It's a "myth"
Except that this 'myth' makes very specific predictions about a great number of things in cosmology that have been verified by actual observation. THAT is the test of a scientific theory: does it agree with observations or not? In particular, it is irrelevant if *you* think it is unreasonable if the data actually supports the theory.

In the case of the Big Bang, the theory is actually *about* everything after approximately 1 nanosecond into the current expansion. Before that, we *know* the theory needs to be modified because it needs to incorporate quantum mechanics. The only 'nothing' in the standard theory is in your head.
LJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3666
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Considering that science works by looking at data, making hypotheses, and testing the specific predictions of the hypotheses against that data, the overall Big Bang theory: that the universe is expanding, that it was previously much hotter and denser than it is now, that the background radiation was formed when the universe cooled enough that matter was no longer incandescent, that nuclear reactions in the early universe formed the elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium, with those fusion reactions cut short by the expansion and cooling, that the density fluctuations early in the expansion were the seeds for modern galaxies, and that the universe is billions of years old; this theory is solid.

What, if anything, was before the current expansion, the basic Big bang scenario does not address. There are several possibilities, but these are all *extensions* of the basic theory to include quantum effects. And yes, in some of these extensions, the universe is a run-away quantum fluctuation. We have measured smaller quantum fluctuations in the lab.

[QUOTE]At no known time has nothing ever exploded. So we're to expect that it only happened once?
By this theory every empty truck needs to have a explosive warning sticker on it.
"

So you don't understand what the Big Bang scenario actually says, as opposed to a 5th grade popularization of that theory.*If* the universe came from a quantum fluctuation (which is only one scenario), then the current density of the universe is way too large for the stability of any new fluctuation. Now, it is *possible* that as the universe expands and the density decreases, that eventually such stabilization will happen again, but this is speculation about what would be *trillions* of years in the future.
Getting a bit snooty when faced with the fact your BB could not have come from nothing.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3667
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Considering that science works by looking at data, making hypotheses, and testing the specific predictions of the hypotheses against that data, the overall Big Bang theory: that the universe is expanding, that it was previously much hotter and denser than it is now, that the background radiation was formed when the universe cooled enough that matter was no longer incandescent, that nuclear reactions in the early universe formed the elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium, with those fusion reactions cut short by the expansion and cooling, that the density fluctuations early in the expansion were the seeds for modern galaxies, and that the universe is billions of years old; this theory is solid.

What, if anything, was before the current expansion, the basic Big bang scenario does not address. There are several possibilities, but these are all *extensions* of the basic theory to include quantum effects. And yes, in some of these extensions, the universe is a run-away quantum fluctuation. We have measured smaller quantum fluctuations in the lab.

[QUOTE]At no known time has nothing ever exploded. So we're to expect that it only happened once?
By this theory every empty truck needs to have a explosive warning sticker on it.
"

So you don't understand what the Big Bang scenario actually says, as opposed to a 5th grade popularization of that theory.*If* the universe came from a quantum fluctuation (which is only one scenario), then the current density of the universe is way too large for the stability of any new fluctuation. Now, it is *possible* that as the universe expands and the density decreases, that eventually such stabilization will happen again, but this is speculation about what would be *trillions* of years in the future.
Given enough time even nothing can create everything.

Ya right.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3668
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Just like three dimensions exists as sections of four (or more) dimensions, so does 2 dimensions. The problem is that you seem to misunderstand what 'other dimensions means in this context. it is *not* the same as other universes. If you want *that*, then we can talk about multiverse theories. But that is a different thing. Furthermore, other than the fourth dimension of time, no other dimension has actual evidence showing it exists. So you are still lacking in anything substantiating your ideas.
You miss understand me. I'm talking about 2 D not parallel universe.
Does a 2 D line really exist in our universe or is it just theory?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3669
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If you have no evidence, then your ideas are pure speculation. But in your case, the ideas actually contradict known data and experimental results.
All of your science and data says that nothing shot forth everything.

Take all your science to the beginning and you still get BS. Nothing "the absents of EVERYTHING" cannot produce everything. IMPOSSIBLE!

Your science can't explain the impossible.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3670
May 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Except that this 'myth' makes very specific predictions about a great number of things in cosmology that have been verified by actual observation. THAT is the test of a scientific theory: does it agree with observations or not? In particular, it is irrelevant if *you* think it is unreasonable if the data actually supports the theory.

In the case of the Big Bang, the theory is actually *about* everything after approximately 1 nanosecond into the current expansion. Before that, we *know* the theory needs to be modified because it needs to incorporate quantum mechanics. The only 'nothing' in the standard theory is in your head.
Doc. Your BB is BS. The absents of everything cannot in anyway create everything.

What you see is Gods handy work not nothings handy work.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3671
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. God did it.
The fall back position of the uneducated.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3672
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc. Your BB is BS. The absents of everything cannot in anyway create everything.
What you see is Gods handy work not nothings handy work.
Your lack of understand does not make the theory wrong.

But you suffer from the arrogance of ignorance because you are effectively saying:-
"I do not understand therefor it is wrong. God did it."

In reality what you are PO about is the simple fact that there no scientific with a "goddidit" term.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3673
May 5, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking if time before time. Clearly I stated when there was no time this in our dimension could refer to anytime there was no time. Enjoy the pun.
When there was no time nothing known in our universe existed per you.
The absents of everything can't create everything in an explosion or in any other way. It's a "myth"
Nobody but YOU is claiming "nothing" here Oh Most Stupid of Liars.

That would be ... YOU and YOU ALONE.

LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,421 - 3,440 of4,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••