The Myth of the Big Bang

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 68)

Showing posts 1,341 - 1,360 of2,008
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1472
Oct 8, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Because you don't like waffles and referring to people as "child" is creepy.
Yeah! That is an odd combination. I'm visualizing the cryptkeeper with mothballs in its hair.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1473
Oct 8, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I’m on here for fun, entertainment and perhaps even leaning something new now and again, and maybe even giving my ideas an airing, I don’t know about you. If you get so touchy when someone won’t believe in your bronze age mythology then I suggest you are wasting your own time
---------

I am here to learn, but not what you are not interested to teach.

Ben

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1474
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Because you don't like waffles....
If you don't want to be treated as a child, don't post as one, child.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1476
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
I am here to learn....
No you're not, Ben.
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
.... but not what you are not interested to teach.
Ben
See?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1477
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah! That is an odd combination. I'm visualizing the cryptkeeper with mothballs in its hair.
How's that working for you?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1478
Oct 8, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want to be treated as a child, don't post as one, child.
But yet you defend the delusional sociopath

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1479
Oct 8, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah! That is an odd combination. I'm visualizing the cryptkeeper with mothballs in its hair.
Really? I was thinking of a guy in a windowless van with a bag full of candy.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1480
Oct 8, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>But yet you defend the delusional sociopath
Really?

Or are you projecting?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1481
Oct 8, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Really? I was thinking of a guy in a windowless van with a bag full of candy.
Were you?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1482
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Or are you projecting?
That makes no sense.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1483
Oct 8, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you?
Why, are you offering?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1484
Oct 8, 2012
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Really? I was thinking of a guy in a windowless van with a bag full of candy.
Hard candy or chocolate?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1485
Oct 8, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Hard candy or chocolate?
Probably meth with a side of cloroform.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1487
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
I am here to learn, but not what you are not interested to teach.
Ben
That is entirely up to you

However may I suggest college or university if you really want to benefit from education.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1488
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>That makes no sense.
Then why do you do it?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1489
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Why, are you offering?
You do not need my permission to fantasize anything you wish.

But, ultimately, your fantasies reveal you, not me.

Child.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1490
Oct 10, 2012
 
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not need my permission to fantasize anything you wish.
But, ultimately, your fantasies reveal you, not me.
Child.
Ouch! You'd think that'd leave a mark.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1491
Oct 10, 2012
 
Saint Augustine wrote:
<quoted text>
Ouch! You'd think that'd leave a mark.
Nah, something that petrified would prolly bust open like a dry seed husk.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1497
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Doctor Who Two wrote:
Ok let's get this straight. Your Science claims there was a Big Bang and it happened (so far) one of two ways
1) when nothing exploded and created everything (this statement is one of Einstein's)
2) when a singularity (black hole) started to expand.
I'll deal with number two sense the first definition it ludicrous.
Science tells us now, that the universe started when a singularity started to expand. This of course is also ludicrous sense we know many laws of physics this would break. First off look at the gravitatisonal pull you would have over come for this to have happened. The universe started once the singularity started to expand this would also mean that the laws of phyics also started at that Exact same time. With all the mass in the whole universe (they claim) was the size of a pin head. That black hole would have such a large gravitational pull that as soon as this made up expansion started the laws of phyics would slam this pin head size singularity back together. This should be called
"The Big Nothing Happened Theory"
Ahh been here before, methinks you were wearing a different sock back then. Funny how fundies seem to go round and round in circles as though next time it will all be different and work out for them

No “our” science makes no such claim, the big bang idea was based on Edwin Hubbles 1929 observation of the theory first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927 that the universe is expanding and was therefore in the past smaller. Science has move on since then, however the universe is still expanding and it was smaller than when that theory was formed.

Now there are around 27 serious theories and many more not so serious ones, the majority of cosmologists no longer subscribe to the big bang idea of something from nothing theory. The blasphemy of theorising “something before the big bang” of 10 years ago is now history.

Actually not ludicrous, one of those theories depends on your interpretation of nothing. I’ll leave you to work that one out, perhaps the work of Michio Kaku will help you out here.

No science does not tell us that the universe erupted from an exploding black hole, a few cosmologists are investigating that possibility, there is quite a big difference between “science tells us” and a few scientists are thinking about it. However have you ever seen a recording of atomic bomb tests? Funny how so much energy can defy the gravity of the matter encompassed in that device is it not?

Whatever the cause the laws of physics do not come into it. They did not start at exactly the same time as the event as you claim, they did not exist prior to 10^-34 of a second after the event and resolved (in that time scale) slowly to become hard and fast laws around 10^-11 of a second later. It is not known whether time it self was relevant, did it exist in that first 10^-34th of a second?

Your claim seems to hinge that the event would collapse into itself because of gravity. You are assuming that C in E=MC^2 is less than 1 m/s, it is actually around 300,000 metres per second. You claim would not pass muster in any serious scientific discussion.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1498
Oct 16, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
God may exist.
But.
It is highly unlikely that this "god" does exist.
Let me repeat that: It may exist, but so far? There is no reason to think It does exist.
Why?
Because of the complete and total lack of all objective evidence for this "god" of yours.
Just for starters.
As soon as you present >>evidence<< for this god?
You >>might<< have a case.
Might.
Begin:
-------

Listen Bob, do you believe that your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grand mother existed? Yes,
you do. Would you tell me about her? No, you won't. But you do believe she existed. Yes, you do. What's the evidence that she did exist? Yourself alive today. If I went billions of great grand mothers back in time, would you still believe she existed? Yes. But evidence that God exists, you can't accept. No, you cannot. Even in spite of your existence today? Well... Well, did you swallow your tongue?

Ben

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,341 - 1,360 of2,008
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••