Comments
1,501 - 1,520 of 2,004 Comments Last updated Aug 20, 2013

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1656
Nov 14, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Well, that's not what Cosmologistes started to teach from the time the big bang was theorized. But rather that the big bang was the origin of the universe. In that case, it was not eternal. You can't have both ways. Either the universe is eternal or it began with the big bang. That's a nut that's gonna prove hard to crack. To take the universe as eternal, the big bang will prove to be a myth as a result of folly. To accept that it had a beginning, you will be agreeing with the Bible that says so for thousands of years. How is gonna be?
Ben
Yes you can, there are several theories, science is now daring to consider before the event, they now have form of mathematics invented by Dr Param Singh to allow them to do this which allows the for the infinities of the atomic world we know and the quantum world.

The theory of Dr Laua Mersini-Houghton allows for the previously unexplainable phenomena that plagued cosmologist to be explained.

Professor Niel Turok, director of the foremost seat of theoretical physics says,“What banged?” Answer: Instead of the universe inexplicably springing into existence from a mysterious `initial singularity’, the Big Bang was a collision between two universes like ours existing as parallel `membranes’ floating in a higher-dimensional space

Because of these works people like the famous and respected Professor Sir Roger Penrose has changed his mind about the Big Bang. He now imagines an eternal cycle of expanding universes where matter becomes energy and back again in the birth of new universes and so on and so on.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1657
Nov 14, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Well, that's not what Cosmologistes started to teach from the time the big bang was theorized. But rather that the big bang was the origin of the universe. In that case, it was not eternal. You can't have both ways. Either the universe is eternal or it began with the big bang. That's a nut that's gonna prove hard to crack. To take the universe as eternal, the big bang will prove to be a myth as a result of folly. To accept that it had a beginning, you will be agreeing with the Bible that says so for thousands of years. How is gonna be?
Ben
It's not a narrow, either/or proposition.

Big Bang is the origin of the universe AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT. What came before, we don't know yet. Multiverses is a very good idea that may prove out to be true. Or not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1658
Nov 14, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Well, that's not what Cosmologistes started to teach from the time the big bang was theorized. But rather that the big bang was the origin of the universe. In that case, it was not eternal. You can't have both ways.
The Big bang is the beginning of the current expansion phase. At that point, the universe was much hotter and denser than it is now; hot enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere.

What, if anything happened before that point is being debated right now. But the Big bang was an important event even if the multiverse (or universe) is eternal.
Either the universe is eternal or it began with the big bang. That's a nut that's gonna prove hard to crack. To take the universe as eternal, the big bang will prove to be a myth as a result of folly.
Completely wrong. The universe *is* expanding. It was once much hotter and denser than it is now. And the theory of general relativity is a good description of the universe from about 1 second into the expansion (and possibly earlier) until now. These aspects of the Big bang theory are established by the evidence and will not go away if/when there is an extension to an understanding of what happened *before* this stage.
To accept that it had a beginning, you will be agreeing with the Bible that says so for thousands of years. How is gonna be?
Ben
Wrong again. The Bible imagines a universe only a few thousand years old. it is actually billions of years old (about 13.7 billion for the current expansion phase). The Bible is a collection of bronze-age myths with no actual evidence to back them up. Even *if* the universe has a beginning, it in no way shows the Biblical stories are correct.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1659
Nov 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The Big bang is the beginning of the current expansion phase. At that point, the universe was much hotter and denser than it is now; hot enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere.

What, if anything happened before that point is being debated right now. But the Big bang was an important event even if the multiverse (or universe) is eternal.

[QUOTE] Either the universe is eternal or it began with the big bang. That's a nut that's gonna prove hard to crack. To take the universe as eternal, the big bang will prove to be a myth as a result of folly."

Completely wrong. The universe *is* expanding. It was once much hotter and denser than it is now. And the theory of general relativity is a good description of the universe from about 1 second into the expansion (and possibly earlier) until now. These aspects of the Big bang theory are established by the evidence and will not go away if/when there is an extension to an understanding of what happened *before* this stage.

[QUOTE] To accept that it had a beginning, you will be agreeing with the Bible that says so for thousands of years. How is gonna be?
Ben"

Wrong again. The Bible imagines a universe only a few thousand years old. it is actually billions of years old (about 13.7 billion for the current expansion phase). The Bible is a collection of bronze-age myths with no actual evidence to back them up. Even *if* the universe has a beginning, it in no way shows the Biblical stories are correct.
The position that the universe has always existed has been refuted in the 60's. Those that still cling to this out dated notion need a refresher course in the laws of physics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1660
Nov 14, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The position that the universe has always existed has been refuted in the 60's. Those that still cling to this out dated notion need a refresher course in the laws of physics.
The Steady State theory was certainly refuted, that is true. But certain versions of string theory have an eternal universe also. And string theory is at least consistent with the laws of physics we know. For that matter, loop quantum gravity also has an eternal universe with a contraction phase before the current expansion phase and a 'Big Bounce' in between.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1661
Nov 14, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The Steady State theory was certainly refuted, that is true. But certain versions of string theory have an eternal universe also. And string theory is at least consistent with the laws of physics we know. For that matter, loop quantum gravity also has an eternal universe with a contraction phase before the current expansion phase and a 'Big Bounce' in between.
String nor Quantum theories promote such. In, fact you start breaking the laws of physics, reaching loss of locality. Scientist have committed suicide over this stuff.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1662
Nov 15, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
String nor Quantum theories promote such. In, fact you start breaking the laws of physics, reaching loss of locality. Scientist have committed suicide over this stuff.
You ignorant Creationist liar.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1664
Nov 15, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
String nor Quantum theories promote such. In, fact you start breaking the laws of physics, reaching loss of locality. Scientist have committed suicide over this stuff.
Loss of locality is a fact that is demonstrated by experimental observation. Quantum mechanics is an essential part of how our universe works. And we know that a quantum theory of gravity is required to understand the very early universe because of the high temperatures.

Classical physics broke over 100 years ago.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1665
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a narrow, either/or proposition.
Big Bang is the origin of the universe AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT. What came before, we don't know yet. Multiverses is a very good idea that may prove out to be true. Or not.
------

The issue here is not about what came before, but the origin of our actual universe. So, you are for the option that the big bang did give origin to the universe. I am not going to contest you. Only to repeat that the big bang did nothing new. The Bible has been telling the same for thousands of years. That's the point.

Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1666
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The Bible imagines a universe only a few thousand years old. it is actually billions of years old (about 13.7 billion for the current expansion phase). The Bible is a collection of bronze-age myths with no actual evidence to back them up. Even *if* the universe has a beginning, it in no way shows the Biblical stories are correct.
-------

Now, Polymath, it is your turn to be on the wrong. The Bible does not at all establishes a date for the beginning of the universe.
"In the beginning..." it says. It does not say when. It could have been millions of years. The idea of six thousand is only a Jewish reference to the six days of the week for the establishment of the Sabbath as a commandment. You know how important this commandment is for the Jewish People. It has nothing to do with the age for the beginning of the universe.

Ben

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1667
Nov 17, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
------
The issue here is not about what came before, but the origin of our actual universe. So, you are for the option that the big bang did give origin to the universe. I am not going to contest you. Only to repeat that the big bang did nothing new. The Bible has been telling the same for thousands of years. That's the point.
Ben
You're a proven religious liar, you don't have any points to make.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1668
Nov 17, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Now, Polymath, it is your turn to be on the wrong. The Bible does not at all establishes a date for the beginning of the universe.
"In the beginning..." it says. It does not say when. It could have been millions of years. The idea of six thousand is only a Jewish reference to the six days of the week for the establishment of the Sabbath as a commandment. You know how important this commandment is for the Jewish People. It has nothing to do with the age for the beginning of the universe.
Ben
Methinks you need to actually read the able before making such a statement.

James Ussher used the lineage of the babble from Adam to Jesus and the words that god is said to have uttered to pinpoint the date of creation on the afternoon of October 23, 4004 BC

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1669
Nov 17, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Now, Polymath, it is your turn to be on the wrong. The Bible does not at all establishes a date for the beginning of the universe.
"In the beginning..." it says. It does not say when. It could have been millions of years. The idea of six thousand is only a Jewish reference to the six days of the week for the establishment of the Sabbath as a commandment. You know how important this commandment is for the Jewish People. It has nothing to do with the age for the beginning of the universe.
Ben
Truthfully, I couldn't care less about your interpretation of your mythology. In the context in which it was written, the age of thousands, not billions of years was understood. You reply on ambiguity to force consistency with modern ideas. That, to me, seems dishonest.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1670
Nov 17, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truthfully, I couldn't care less about your interpretation of your mythology. In the context in which it was written, the age of thousands, not billions of years was understood. You reply on ambiguity to force consistency with modern ideas. That, to me, seems dishonest.
--------

Interesting that when someone is cornered, usually, the only way out is through the teeth. Now, I am the one with the mythology and not Carl Sagan who equated the big bang to a myth.(Cosmos p. 285) The problem with you is that you either do not understand metaphorical language or prefer that theists stay believers of talking serpents just to laugh at them. Guess what? Not all theists are the same. This, IMHO is more akin to dishonesty.

Ben

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1671
Nov 18, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Interesting that when someone is cornered, usually, the only way out is through the teeth. Now, I am the one with the mythology and not Carl Sagan who equated the big bang to a myth.(Cosmos p. 285) The problem with you is that you either do not understand metaphorical language or prefer that theists stay believers of talking serpents just to laugh at them. Guess what? Not all theists are the same. This, IMHO is more akin to dishonesty.
Ben
You would not know the difference between honesty and dishonesty

No many weeks ago you were caught out lying for your belief and claimed incredulity as well as sever other cop outs and excuses that someone had actually highlighted your lies.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1672
Nov 18, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Interesting that when someone is cornered, usually, the only way out is through the teeth. Now, I am the one with the mythology and not Carl Sagan who equated the big bang to a myth.(Cosmos p. 285) The problem with you is that you either do not understand metaphorical language or prefer that theists stay believers of talking serpents just to laugh at them. Guess what? Not all theists are the same. This, IMHO is more akin to dishonesty.
Ben
If you agree that notions of God are all metaphorical, then there is no argument. The issue is that the language of the Bible is NOT metaphorical when it comes to the age of the world.
soapmann

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1673
Nov 18, 2012
 
youtube.com/watch...
The Big Bang is just a mere cap crackle

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1674
Nov 19, 2012
 
soapmann wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=6-t4wtt72A Q&feature=plcp
The Big Bang is just a mere cap crackle
Weird video; no relation to Big Bang.

“Jeezuz in the Potty”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1675
Nov 19, 2012
 
There has been some work lately that would suggest the "Big Bang" was not completely correct; that the "beginning" was merely part of a greater continuum that continues, and may have begun an infinity ago and will continue to an infinite period.

But it seems no one really knows, least of all myself.

The idea that a Biblical god created the infinite universe has it's problems, that make the acceptance of the creation story very difficult.

-if something is required to make something we can ask "What created the creator of the something?" Or; if god created the Universe, because a creator is always required, what created God?

-if God was alone in an empty universe, what did he create with?

-why did God create?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1676
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ozada wrote:
There has been some work lately that would suggest the "Big Bang" was not completely correct; that the "beginning" was merely part of a greater continuum that continues, and may have begun an infinity ago and will continue to an infinite period.
But it seems no one really knows, least of all myself.
The idea that a Biblical god created the infinite universe has it's problems, that make the acceptance of the creation story very difficult.
-if something is required to make something we can ask "What created the creator of the something?" Or; if god created the Universe, because a creator is always required, what created God?
-if God was alone in an empty universe, what did he create with?
-why did God create?
Hi Ozada, long time no see, are you well?

Your before the beginning statement is made possible by the work of Dr Param Singh and his revolutionary mathematics. It allows cosmologist to dare to consider before.

There is (what I think is) a great documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj
That discusses some of the work of the Perimeter institute. It’s also available on
http://www.youtube.com/playlist...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••