Re: Re: Olympic Dumb Statement Competition Ended by Clear Winner
- From: Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:03:55 GMT
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcross77@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On Aug 17, 7:35 am, Free Lunch <lu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:22:44 -0500, "adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
talk.origins:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:18 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:04 am, "adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Baron Bodissey wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:52 pm, "adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
adman wrote:
Yes. If you ever learn what a theory is, and turn honest you willMike Painter wrote:Do you accept the big bang theory?
We don't have to. Science is self correcting on that issue.
Tell me you've invented anti-gravity and I only accept it if it
can be duplicated.
also.
Good, you accept big bang. Lets discuss that.
Kick and scream all you want to about who is and who is not
honest. Your science is in it's infancy regarding what it can and
cannot explain.
The big bang being the most famous that science cannot fully be
explain (if it is even true). I remind you that the singularity is
not proven and it defies known laws of physics. Which makes your
big bang a paradox. If singularity is true, then known laws of
physics are false. If known laws of physics it true, the
singularity is false. IOW you have a theory that is not testable,
nor is it repeatable and observable. Now, by your very own
definition of science; something needs to be repeatable and
observable, and testable in order to be valid. Your big bang
fails miserably at this.
Which pretty much makes all your theories that depend on the big
bang to be accurate moot until singularity is proven.
How much more simpler can THAT be to understand?
And there are MANY theories like big bang in science. Another is
evolution *as it is currently described*. Get back to me when you
can observe, repeate and test evolution. ok? Until then, by your
very own definition that a theory that needs to be repeatable and
observable, as well as testable in order to be valid, -----well,
evolution would be false as currently presented.
Now, if science was as "self correcting" as you claim, the big
bang would be moot because of it's obvious contradiction to other
known science. In this case, the other known science is physics.
But science has NOT corrected itself as big bang is still
presented as the origin of the universe. Well, the same can be
said of evolution in it's present form. Evolution is not
repeatable, observable, or testable. So just like the big bang,
any theory that depends on evolution to be true is also moot.
Religion is the opposite. Tell me you know the truth about the
bible and I know you have founded another sect.
No, what you have found is another religion.There are over 30,000 different sects who say they are Christian
and have either *THE* troth or a better version of the truth
than all the others. Only one can be right, all can be wrong.
Religion is not God. Even Jesus taught this as he hated the
religious leaders of his day.
When you claimed the first time that the Big Bang Theory violated
the laws of physics, you were challenged by Free Lunch to be more
specific and back up your claim. Yet, here you go again,
blathering at length about some nebulous "laws of physics" without
ever answering the question (What a surprise!). How about putting
your money where your mouth is and tell us: What laws and how does
it violate them?
Free knows that information has been posted over in over in threads
that were hundreds of posts long
Still no answer.
Give him a link, and move on.
TCross
Here, you give it to him/her
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae251.cfm
Evidence that you don't understand the problem. No physicists claim that
this proves that the big bang didn't happen.
Physicists are required to believe in the Big Bang to get their
Physical Licenses.
Hohohoho!!! The vast majority of physicists never get involved with
cosmology - that is a VERY specialist subject.
That's called "peer review." They peer into their
private opinions and review their fitness for the job before they are
hired.
Stupid must be your middle name.
--
TCross
Bob.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Common Ancestor?
- Next by Date: Re: Olympic Dumb Statement Competition Ended by Clear Winner
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Olympic Dumb Statement Competition Ended by Clear Winner
- Next by thread: Re: Olympic Dumb Statement Competition Ended by Clear Winner
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
