The Myth of the Big Bang

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1616 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
“You don’t have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is “I don’t know”
&#8213; Penn Jillette
See the "I don't know" part.
Try and understand that.
Nobody gives a f*ck about the opinion . a Creationist posing as an agnostic atheist who tries to derail coversations when they side towards showing up your failed cult.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1617 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>nobody does.
Wrong, your bullsh*t god that you lie about is already disproven. You have a mental illness called faith which causes you to lie about science. Fact.

I ousted you as a Creationist shill over a year ago. It's taken almost 6 months for you to admit your bullsh*t tag team with nanoanomaly.

Christine is right on the money and knows you a fake atheist / agnostic. Time for you to f*ck off again like you did last time Creationist liar.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1618 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>NO reasoning with you, is there? Rant away crazy pants. Did I mention the bible? Did I specify a deity? Did I say that I was certain that a deity was involved?
also,it's actually&#65279; e²=(mc²)²+(pc)²
Keep jumping to conclusions and you are going to find yourself falling over the edge.
Who cares, you were the one ranting the Hawkins has lost a bet, you were the one who brought it up, no one else, no jumping to conclusions involved here. Now if you could just man up and admit that you too are capable of loosing bets

But I love the way you slide all over the place rather than admitting that you are fallible.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1619 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>...also,it's actually&#65279; e²=(mc²)²+(pc)²
...
Wrong

The Einstein equation that proves that no omnipotent deity can exist in this universe is E=MC^2

We are not discussion the effect of momentum but if you want to include it then feel free, it makes no difference to the result

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1620 Nov 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
The Einstein equation that proves that no omnipotent deity can exist in this universe is E=MC^2
We are not discussion the effect of momentum but if you want to include it then feel free, it makes no difference to the result
So, then could you explain how "E=MC^2" proves that there is no being capable of existing beyond our ability to percieve said being? I am willing to bet that you don't know. You most likely will come back with, "Look it up yourself."
Didn't Einstein say that nothing can move faster than the speed of light?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1621 Nov 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares, you were the one ranting the Hawkins has lost a bet, you were the one who brought it up, no one else, no jumping to conclusions involved here. Now if you could just man up and admit that you too are capable of loosing bets
But I love the way you slide all over the place rather than admitting that you are fallible.
I did not rant . I asked one simple question and you went off of the deep end with it. Are you the guys wife or something? All I have stated is that "nobody knows", which in effect means that I don't know, which means that I am fallible. Try connecting the dots once in a while.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1622 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>So, then could you explain how "E=MC^2" proves that there is no being capable of existing beyond our ability to percieve said being? I am willing to bet that you don't know. You most likely will come back with, "Look it up yourself."
Didn't Einstein say that nothing can move faster than the speed of light?
1. You need to define "being", "beyond" and "percieve" sunshine.
2. "I am willing to bet that you don't know". So sure, you arrogant Creationist.
3. Einstein said a lot of things, just like people who hallucinate about the earth being 6000 years old.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1623 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>So, then could you explain how "E=MC^2" proves that there is no being capable of existing beyond our ability to percieve said being? I am willing to bet that you don't know. You most likely will come back with, "Look it up yourself."
Didn't Einstein say that nothing can move faster than the speed of light?
I have, on this thread and several others offered the explanation for the fact that no omnipotent being (look up the word omnipotent) as described in KJV Revelation 19:6 can exist in this universe. I did not write the babble and I did not formulate E=MC^2.

What it boils down to is the fact that you exist therefor energy cannot be infinite, they are a logical and physical contradiction.

That is C and yes that’s what Einstein said, as yet he has never been disproved

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1624 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I did not rant . I asked one simple question and you went off of the deep end with it. Are you the guys wife or something? All I have stated is that "nobody knows", which in effect means that I don't know, which means that I am fallible. Try connecting the dots once in a while.
You made a statement that Hawking has lost bets as though that makes you more valid than him on the subject of cosmology. I asked in reply whether you were also capable of loosing bets. As yet you have squirmed and excused but not answered. It’s simple enough, if you cannot put you faith in Hawking because he lost some bets then how can you put faith in yourself when you will not even admit to loosing bets.

I do not care what you know or don’t know, what I do care about is that because something is unknown does not automatically imply that a goddidit.

Your sad sarcasm is simply that, a sad attempt at sarcasm. My dots do not rely on a bronze age book for their validity and sometimes those dots cannot (as yet) be joined.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1625 Nov 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You need to define "being", "beyond" and "percieve" sunshine.
2. "I am willing to bet that you don't know". So sure, you arrogant Creationist.
3. Einstein said a lot of things, just like people who hallucinate about the earth being 6000 years old.
I do not need to define it because I do not care about it. Look up ignostic .

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1626 Nov 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a statement that Hawking has lost bets as though that makes you more valid than him on the subject of cosmology. I asked in reply whether you were also capable of loosing bets. As yet you have squirmed and excused but not answered. It’s simple enough, if you cannot put you faith in Hawking because he lost some bets then how can you put faith in yourself when you will not even admit to loosing bets.
I do not care what you know or don’t know, what I do care about is that because something is unknown does not automatically imply that a goddidit.
Your sad sarcasm is simply that, a sad attempt at sarcasm. My dots do not rely on a bronze age book for their validity and sometimes those dots cannot (as yet) be joined.
my stating that Hawking lost multiple bets has nothing to do with me trying to make my opinions on cosmology more valid than his. I was pointing out that he is not the be all end all on the subject. Those people that he lost those bets to are worth mentioning as well, possibly more so. I never stated that goddit on anything. I just stated that you can not prove the unprovable .

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1627 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>my stating that Hawking lost multiple bets has nothing to do with me trying to make my opinions on cosmology more valid than his. I was pointing out that he is not the be all end all on the subject. Those people that he lost those bets to are worth mentioning as well, possibly more so. I never stated that goddit on anything. I just stated that you can not prove the unprovable .
We know what you were doing, that makes no difference to the fact that he is a world authority on theoretical physics and you aren’t. And you still have not told us that you too are fallible and can loose bets

That god did not do it is understood in science. However you are welcome to you own beliefs.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1628 Nov 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
We know what you were doing, that makes no difference to the fact that he is a world authority on theoretical physics and you aren’t. And you still have not told us that you too are fallible and can loose bets
That god did not do it is understood in science. However you are welcome to you own beliefs.
I don't know many more ways I can say it so, I am not going to bother. Dang, you are as dense as Skeptic.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1629 Nov 6, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know many more ways I can say it so, I am not going to bother. Dang, you are as dense as Skeptic.
You have not told me one – not once how many bets you have lost

But don’t worry, I am not holding my breath while I wait

So what is it you claim to have told me?

That you believe in magic and I don’t?

You you belive goddidit and I don’t?– same thing

That you believe Stephen Hawkins die snot know as much about theoretical physics as you do?

What – if anything are you claiming you have told me?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1630 Nov 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not told me one – not once how many bets you have lost
But don’t worry, I am not holding my breath while I wait
So what is it you claim to have told me?
That you believe in magic and I don’t?
A lie on your part. I neversaid that I believe in magic. You are just making up that crap the same as Skeptic does.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You you belive goddidit and I don’t?– same thing
A lie on your part. I neversaid that I believe in magic. You are just making up that crap the same as Skeptic does.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That you believe Stephen Hawkins die snot know as much about theoretical physics as you do?
Another lie on your part. I did not refer to myself, you did that. I referred to the people that he lost the bets to. Do you know their names? Hawking's fame does not make him any smarter than the others in his field of study.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

What – if anything are you claiming you have told me?
That you are obviously an idiot, a troll, or both.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1631 Nov 6, 2012

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1632 Nov 7, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>A lie on your part. I neversaid that I believe in magic. You are just making up that crap the same as Skeptic does.
<quoted text> A lie on your part. I neversaid that I believe in magic. You are just making up that crap the same as Skeptic does.
<quoted text>Another lie on your part. I did not refer to myself, you did that. I referred to the people that he lost the bets to. Do you know their names? Hawking's fame does not make him any smarter than the others in his field of study.
<quoted text>That you are obviously an idiot, a troll, or both.
Not a lie, assumption of the basis of your posts. Tell me do you believe in god?

Not a lie, assumption of the basis of your posts. Tell me do you believe in god?

You said and I quote “I will thanks. Not that I think that Stephen Hawking's work carries much weight. How many bets has that guy lost” Are you suggesting that “carries much weight” is not a personal perspective?

I did not say otherwise but it does make him smarter than you. May I ask you to supply trhe names of these others in the field of theoretical physics, whatsup? You don’t even know what his field of study is and yet you claim his opinion does not carry much weight?

So you have no answer then? Well done. It does make you look foolish though, rather like you NONE answer to my question of how many bets you have lost.

If you can’t answer or are unwilling to answer than that is your problem and no one else’s and if you make BS up just for spite then please don’t be astounded when people to laugh at you

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1633 Nov 8, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes it a guess and not fact.
There is no proof to your claim of when the laws of physics started, hell there is no proof that the Big Bang even happened. It's a guess science took a look at data and forced it in the Big Bang mold nothing more.
Exactly the opposite. The data was what 'forced' us to accept the Big Bang picture. Originally, Einstein had a cosmological constant so that a static universe without contraction or expansion was possible in his equations: he tried to *force* a static universe. The data, provided by Hubble, is what showed that the universe is, in fact, expanding. That was what lead directly to the Big Bang theory.
Anything no matter how thin has to be held onto because they have nothing else. And if there is nothing else then we're all back to a creator. We can't have that can we.
Again, completely wrong. There were many alternative proposals to the Big bang theory. The Steady State model was viable for a couple of decades until the *data* from the background radiation showed it to be wrong. That same *data* agreed with the predictions of the Big Bang model. Once again, it is the data that drives the model, not the other way around.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1634 Nov 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, completely wrong. There were many alternative proposals to the Big bang theory. The Steady State model was viable for a couple of decades until the *data* from the background radiation showed it to be wrong. That same *data* agreed with the predictions of the Big Bang model. Once again, it is the data that drives the model, not the other way around.
----------

Hey, Polymath, what does the big bang say about the universe? When Lamaitre, in 1822 came out with the theory of the big bang, he said the universe was now to be understood as begun with the big bang. Then, cosmologists started promoting the right idea that the universe did have a beginning, contrary to the theory that the universe never had a beginning since Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the universe. Great discovery which came about only to confirm what the Bible has been saying all along for thousands of years, that the universe did have a beginning.(Gen. 1:1)

Ben

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1635 Nov 8, 2012
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Hey, Polymath, what does the big bang say about the universe? When Lamaitre, in 1822 came out with the theory of the big bang, he said the universe was now to be understood as begun with the big bang. Then, cosmologists started promoting the right idea that the universe did have a beginning, contrary to the theory that the universe never had a beginning since Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the universe. Great discovery which came about only to confirm what the Bible has been saying all along for thousands of years, that the universe did have a beginning.(Gen. 1:1)
Ben
First, LeMaitre worked in 1922, not 1822.

Second, the Big Bang theory deals with the expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state. This is described using general relativity and statistical mechanics. However, the description breaks down at the very start; the curvature, density, and temperature all go to infinity. This called a singularity and shows that the theory does NOT hold 'all the way back'.

Third, we specifically know that general relativity is not a quantum mechanical theory and we also know that quantum gravity will have a role to play at the very early stages of the universal expansion. The problem is that we have no tested theory of quantum gravity (general relativity has been tested in its domain of applicability).

Fourth, there are several proposed quantum theories of gravity, but they give different answers concerning what happens before the universal expansion begins. Some say that time *begins* when the expansion begins. Those theories *do* have a 'beginning of the universe'. But most theories have the universe existing forever into the past either as a single 'universe' or as a multiverse. Since we cannot, as yet, test between the different theories, we cannot say what happened before the start of the expansion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 15 min Shizle 55
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 26 min Eagle 12 247,287
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 26 min Amused 5
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 28 min Eagle 12 12,537
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 1 hr -Stray Dog 47,776
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 14 hr thetruth 19
Proof of God for the Atheist 15 hr thetruth 100
More from around the web