Re: coaster: The giant in Jack and the Bean Stock said fee fye fo fum.

On Feb 27, 8:40 pm, derdagi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:22 pm, "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 27, 7:22 pm, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It wasn't trollese and you know it.

Well, I for one am perfectly willing to put it up to ignorance and an
unwillingness to learn.

As for the Hawking Paradox and dark energy, your universe isn't
logical, might be flat, possibly happened in a single point if we
allow enough imagination.

You mean, considering the possibility that the brains which evolved to
deal with human scale forces, temperatures, and size, might not be
able to intuitively grasp the nature of the universe on a different
scale?

The known universe is based on different
physics, though, and must be "allowed," along with a lot of
assumptions, to make abiogenesis your starting point for the rest of
it.

Abiogenesis only has to do with the beginning of life on Earth, and it
did not involve any singularities. If you can't tell the differences
among cosmology, abiogenesis hypotheses, and evolutionary science, how
can you possibly hope to criticize *any of them?

The boomerang evidence shows features of islands of creation. The
black holes are points of destruction. The Hawking Paradox allowed
for points of disappearing information. The boomerang showed points
of creation. Watch the Big Bang fall apart. None of the best
theoretical physicists and cosmologists will even be suprised. They
say as much.

Where? Who?

http://science.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=4&cpi=853...





The big boys don't have any faith in their explanations. Only the
believers are left, as we do know enough to see that our scientific
explanations aren't working.

Correct. We have no nuclear power plants. We haven't wiped out
smallpox. You aren't reading these words, because computers don't work
and neither does the network technology. And I can't see your post,
because my glasses don't work.

Oh, wait. Are you saying that a theory might be abandoned, and
replaced with another, because the accumulating evidence is beginning
to paint another picture?

Well, duh. That's how science happens. If you think that's cause for
arrogant gloating, then you only reaffirm your ignorance of scientific
methodology. Can you offer a cite that indicates any of the big dogs
are ready to toss the Big Bang, or can't you do anything but yap?

I don't have 5803 messages trolling 146 groups, but if you want to
hear the final Big Dog say it with his own mouth, you watch the
Hawking Paradox and the 21st century cosmos.



It looks like physics is saved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4249192.stm

Whew! That was close!

Kermit

.