Letter: Don't let science get in the way

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

You clearly have no grasp of stellar evolution, do you? There were no "rocks" from other galaxies in the initial accretion disk that our solar system formed from. Right there you showed your ignorance and lost the debate.
Now, please explain to me how your item #1 disproves the Big Bang.
With regard to #2, you're pretty much right on. We do know the basic composition of the bodies in the solar system, and from that and the chemical/mineral composition of the meteorite we can gather that the most likely source is Mars.
I'm sorry you feel the need to inflate your credentials, but you're clearly shooting from the hip and have no real education or knowledge in this arena.

Actually, I did not inflate my credentials and your gun is unloaded.

[Food for thought]

LeRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not say it was not possible but if you believe those rocks came from Mars you are smoking something. Look at this way, the scientists said that an astroid hit Mars and knocked rocks off Mars (Mar's gravity did not bring them back to Mars) and that those rocks hit Earth. We know those are Martian rocks because they have the same composition as rocks from Mars. It was reported as a fact they came from Mars. So from this:
1. Mars is unique in that no other place in the universe including the astroid that hit Mars has the same composition as Mars.-- That statement alone then disproves the big bang theory.
2. We know the composition of every other planet in existence and all other astroids.
What this is NASA hype to get the US to spend money on going to Mars, because those rocks supposedly also had proof of life on them. Supposedly there was a worm trail that some bacteria made on the rocks while they were on Mars. Once again, on Mars and not the astroid that hit Mars. Or the other plant in the next galaxy that collided with an another plant right after the big bang, Or so on. Not saying they were wrong about life on the rock just saying that finding a rock on Antarctica that came from Mars has the same probability that a Chico Libertarian will be the first ambassador to the Star Sol.
As for "You people that have no grasp of science" --- hmmm I have a BA, BS, MS, PH.D., a PostDoc and I teach at one of the most prestigious Universities in the US. Enough said, I win.

Where do you teach?

[Jim]

Hold on, the man admits his own limitations, Paul has a hard time understanding the "Big Bang" theory. I accept that. There are probably many things he cannot understand. Some of us accept that some things are incomprehensible. The telling point is that he DOES UNDERSTAND "Intelligent Design." If that simpleton can understand it, it's too simple. No Paul, the world is round.

[Jim]

Travis wrote:

<quoted text>
If there was nothing before God created it, then where did God come from?...We can do this all day.

Sure we can Trav, and let's take it a step further. If there was nothing at one point, and God created everything, then God created Hell, suffering, damnation, sin, murder, and all the people who believe in the "Big Bang" theory plus those who don't. You better be careful, God is listening to you right now!

[Jim]

Food for thought wrote:

Thanks. I agree perception is not reality. I'm curious, no offense taken, if you're a scientist and your main objective is to find empirical evidence and/or truth in whatever you research doesn't this contradict believing in something you can't prove to exist i.e. God? To keep this simple, because this debate could go pretty deep, how does one explain why almost all cultures throughout time have beliefs in their own gods? Cultures that far existed 1000 years before the main three religions started.

It's simple, imagination. Every culture sees their own limitations, and also sees that beyond them, there is more. In that word, "more" is the seed for a theistic belief. If I am not the entire universe, then something is bigger than me, whatever that is; the weather to tribes, and the dollar to Americans, we must respect, adore, source, it.

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

You clearly have no grasp of stellar evolution, do you? There were no "rocks" from other galaxies in the initial accretion disk that our solar system formed from. Right there you showed your ignorance and lost the debate.
Now, please explain to me how your item #1 disproves the Big Bang.
With regard to #2, you're pretty much right on. We do know the basic composition of the bodies in the solar system, and from that and the chemical/mineral composition of the meteorite we can gather that the most likely source is Mars.

Layman's terms --

Conservation of mass says we are not going to create any mass.

So we have all the basic building blocks that make up the universe, matter, gases, and some initial spark thus the big bang. Matter gets thrown throughout the universe, galaxies (a collection of millions or billions of stars, planets, gas, dust, asteroids, all held together by gravitational forces)-- note the word billions.

So out of all of this Mars forms. From the the same matter that every thing else formed from. But Mars is unique, only Mars though (according to Chico Libertarian and some idiot scientist hoping for federal funding) has a certain composition. No rocks, no asteroids, no other planets, no planets in other galaxies, no where else in the entire universe is this composition found. Then an asteroid hits Mars which has its own gravitational field but is not strong enough to keep rocks from flying off (this can happen) and those rocks happened to hit Antarctica and happened to have life from Mars on them. Not life from the asteroid that hit Mars. So a rock hits a moving planet and shoots off rocks which hits another moving planet in a 3D space. God was playing pool and that was a great shot.

So the big bang produced a planet so unique in a random process (which is the definition of random) out of matter that is found every where but gave Mars only that composition. Again this disproves the big bang - think about it.

Logic is not the strong point of astronomers and when Carl Sagan announced he was the world's foremost authority on exobiology, you wonder how many times was he probed in a trailer park in Kansas?

I love debating people who listen to late night radio and believe it.

[LeRoy]

Food for thought wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you teach?

I am too easy to find online and have too much family in the Chico area to let the creepy folks on here find out who I am that easy.:-)

However, if you have the US News and World Report I teach at one of the four regional universities (they don't have a full blown Ph.D. program) that was ranked #1 and has been for some 15 years. That should be easy enough to find, I think a 5th grader could.

[ChicoLibertarian]

Once again you prove that you have no concept of process of the Big Bang, the sequencing of stars, or the genesis of the solar system.

The Big Bang did not throw out matter into the Universe, it was an eruption of energy. As the Universe expanded it cooled and from that cooling energy the laws of physics were born along with the particles that they govern. Once hydrogen was formed the basic building block was created for stars. Quite obviously this is different from your "matter thrown everywhere" theory.

The asteroid was shown to have a composition that is similar to the rocks on Mars, so why would you conclude that the rock came from another galaxy? Remember, when you here hooves, think horses, not zebras.

You then claim that for the asteroid to hit Earth is some great feat, but you claim it to be more likely to be a piece of space debris from another galaxy? You have to be kidding me.

The Big Bang producing a unique planet in a random process is the definition of random? I don't think so.

Remember, we've been to Mars, we've analyzed the rocks and soil, we know the bulk of the composition differs from the rocks and soil.

Are you really this stupid, or is it an act? Not one piece of your description of events is correct. Amazingly stupid.

[LeRoy]

Let's see --

1. I said Matter and I think Hydrogen is Matter - I win
1a. Things were not thrown everywhere in an eruption of energy?- Huh? What does eruption mean?- I win
2. The laws of physics were born with the big bang - No a law is universal and the big bang followed the laws of physics - I win
3. I did not conclude they came from another galaxy, however I did not exclude it coming from another galaxy, you did - I win
4. A rock from Mars hitting the Earth is a great feat and once again I did not say it came from another galaxy - I win
5. A random process is random and in a random process uniqueness can occur. For example in I ask you to hide 5 things in a random order and you place all 5 in the same box that is still random. Random does not mean spread out.- I win
6. We analyzed a small portion of rocks on Mars (I don't need to inflate my credentials but let's just say I did design a rover (mine did not go) for Mars but my office mate did design the original arm and a prototype is in the Smithsonian)-- We did not look at all of Mars nor have we examine random asteroids that fly by.- I win

7. Do YOU want to look more stupid?

[Food for thought]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

Once again you prove that you have no concept of process of the Big Bang, the sequencing of stars, or the genesis of the solar system.
The Big Bang did not throw out matter into the Universe, it was an eruption of energy. As the Universe expanded it cooled and from that cooling energy the laws of physics were born along with the particles that they govern. Once hydrogen was formed the basic building block was created for stars. Quite obviously this is different from your "matter thrown everywhere" theory.
The asteroid was shown to have a composition that is similar to the rocks on Mars, so why would you conclude that the rock came from another galaxy? Remember, when you here hooves, think horses, not zebras.
You then claim that for the asteroid to hit Earth is some great feat, but you claim it to be more likely to be a piece of space debris from another galaxy? You have to be kidding me.
The Big Bang producing a unique planet in a random process is the definition of random? I don't think so.
Remember, we've been to Mars, we've analyzed the rocks and soil, we know the bulk of the composition differs from the rocks and soil.
Are you really this stupid, or is it an act? Not one piece of your description of events is correct. Amazingly stupid.

There is no need to get insulting, if you can't engage in a debate about the topic without holding personal attacks then don't say anything.

[ChicoLibertarian]

Sorry LeRoy, but it's clear you have no scientific background. Your terms show your ignorance of the science behind the Big Bang. Why don't you please explain to me the physics behind the theory of inflation. If you know so much, you'll know just which theory I'm discussing.

Fact of the matter is that you don't have clue regarding this. The fact that you'd even hypothesize that a piece of space debris could make to Earth from another galaxy, but completely deny the possibility that it originated on Mars shows your absolute lack of understanding.

Keep talking LeRoy, nobody is listening to you. Unless they too have no understanding.

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

Fact of the matter is that you don't have clue regarding this. The fact that you'd even hypothesize that a piece of space debris could make to Earth from another galaxy, but completely deny the possibility that it originated on Mars shows your absolute lack of understanding.

You don't get it. To say something came from Mars as fact, they presented it as fact, and exclude everything else is pure and simply idiotic. And you have and absolute lack of understanding if you don't see that. Which you don't.

Thank you, I got real work to do.

[DOL]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

You clearly have no grasp of stellar evolution, do you? There were no "rocks" from other galaxies in the initial accretion disk that our solar system formed from. Right there you showed your ignorance and lost the debate.
Now, please explain to me how your item #1 disproves the Big Bang.
With regard to #2, you're pretty much right on. We do know the basic composition of the bodies in the solar system, and from that and the chemical/mineral composition of the meteorite we can gather that the most likely source is Mars.
I'm sorry you feel the need to inflate your credentials, but you're clearly shooting from the hip and have no real education or knowledge in this arena.

I am sorry that you are lousing up the Libertarian party. I do know about science and I have a science degree. I had to listen to evolution being preached from the bully pulpit on a daily basis and I disagreed with it ever single second. You are narrow minded and a simpleton. Expand your mind. Go watch Expelled or are you scared.

[ChicoLibertarian]

DOL wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sorry that you are lousing up the Libertarian party. I do know about science and I have a science degree. I had to listen to evolution being preached from the bully pulpit on a daily basis and I disagreed with it ever single second. You are narrow minded and a simpleton. Expand your mind. Go watch Expelled or are you scared.

A political science degree hardly qualifies you to comment on a scientific matter, DOL. Why don't you list the problems that you have with evolution so that I may rebut them with science?

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
A political science degree hardly qualifies you to comment on a scientific matter, DOL. Why don't you list the problems that you have with evolution so that I may rebut them with science?

The funny thing is neither does watching reruns of Cosmos, reading a Brief History of Time, or in your case thinking Gilligan was going to make it off the island while channel hoping through reruns of Star Trek. I laid out part of my credentials and you thought I was inflating them, no no no. Whereas all you can do is put people down and say "I know science" well Mr After-Dinner Science, prove it.

And if you are thinking why would someone with my degrees read this website, well this is my home town and I still have a vested interest here. Yes some of us farm boy hicks that drive tractors have brains. When I worked in a special studies think tank (time to drop a name), spending an hour talking to John Young (He drove on the moon) was cool and I don't mean with 300 other people either.

Oh, theory of inflation, a theory to patch holes in the theory of evolution. One theory that can not be proved to fix another theory that can not be proved. The great part is you so have so much faith in mindless theory you exclude so many other possibilities. That's the problem with bad science; closed mindedness.

Layout the degrees, tell you read string theory, superstring theory, or "Was Cosmic Inflation The 'Bang' Of The Big Bang?" by Guth. But before you believe those theories you best read the assumptions, the things they can't prove. Then maybe we will listen to the man living in the avenues. Till then I think I hear a Gnat.

[Baboon]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
A political science degree hardly qualifies you to comment on a scientific matter, DOL. Why don't you list the problems that you have with evolution so that I may rebut them with science?

What in creation are you talking about? Since when would I take biology classes for a political science degree? If you can't figure that out why in the world would I want to discuss anything with you? I had my fill of jerks like you all through college. Why is it that you cannot accept the fact that evolution is a flawed THEORY? Why is it that you refuse to understand that science can and does corroborate a Creator?

[Baboon]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
A political science degree hardly qualifies you to comment on a scientific matter, DOL. Why don't you list the problems that you have with evolution so that I may rebut them with science?

I forgot to answer your question. I have a one word list for the problem I have with evolution: Everything. I do not believe in any single part of evolutionary theory. Rebut that but if you do attempt a rebuttal just know that you are wasting your time because I have had this debate over and over and I will not waste anymore of my time on another close-minded numbskull.

[LeRoy]

Baboon wrote:

<quoted text>
I forgot to answer your question. I have a one word list for the problem I have with evolution: Everything. I do not believe in any single part of evolutionary theory. Rebut that but if you do attempt a rebuttal just know that you are wasting your time because I have had this debate over and over and I will not waste anymore of my time on another close-minded numbskull.

Don't be too hard on the lad, he probably went to California public schools in the 1990's. When they were ranked 51 in the Nation, right below Guam. I feel bad that he can't get his $49.95 back when he returns his DVD collection of Cosmos.

[ChicoLibertarian]

Sorry LeRoy, but you and your seem to share a similar knack for rebutting a theory by saying "everything" is wrong with it.

Again, Baboon, please be specific with how the theory of natural selection is flawed.

As for you LeRoy, if you're so smart and talented then why don't you too layout the flaws with the current cosmological theories?

That's what I thought, crickets from the both of you.

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

Sorry LeRoy, but you and your seem to share a similar knack for rebutting a theory by saying "everything" is wrong with it.
Again, Baboon, please be specific with how the theory of natural selection is flawed.
As for you LeRoy, if you're so smart and talented then why don't you too layout the flaws with the current cosmological theories?
That's what I thought, crickets from the both of you.

Too afraid to say your credentials are from the science fiction book of the month club?