The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 12:00 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It has become very clear from all this babbling Shane is totally ignorant of science and it's laws. He is unable to even BEGIN to discuss one of them, specifically. He said completely nonsensical things about "matter stretching" and could answer no question about it. He said some nonsense about Chaos Theory, as he thinks it makes him look smart. What a monumental fucking waste of time.
This does not help you win the debate.
You are playing for a draw which is also a waste of time.
Provide evidence or disprove the expanding bubble story.
Why is this so hard?
No evidence no win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 12:03 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have yet to see any scientific evidence that contradicts or proves wrong the expanding bubble story.

You've seen mountains of it. *Your* just too ignorant to recognize it.
Getting nowhere as usual. Bring something to the table Bucky.
Your not going to win any arguments this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 12:11 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 11:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Yes it is one of the ways to draw a debate.
If neither party has evidence and they cannot bring anything new to the discussion it can be considered a draw.

I provided my evidence already. All the laws of science is my evidence. Pick anyone you want and you can either prove me wrong by showing the evidence I provided is incorrect or providing me evidence of your own that discredits my claim.
The world can be created in 6 days.

Provide me some evidence if you dint wish to call it a draw.
Please don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.

Listing the laws, (after I linked you to them) is not evidence.
If listing them were evidence, they could be evidence of anything.
You said you were going to prove something, NOT that someone had to prove you wrong. You moved the goal posts. You are an ignorant fraud.
That's exactly what we do when we provide evidence. We don't physically provide each and every piece of evidence by holding the listeners hand and guiding them through it piece by piece.
What do you think the word "provide" means?
Place the knowledge before you.
I placed it. You read it. You don't disprove it (which would make you win) You may show some of it's irrelevance (which could help you draw). You don't provide any evidence of your own (which would make you win).
Your playing for a draw.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 12:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 12:19 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you. You don't get to ask new question before answering the old ones. Stop dodging your own burden of proof you inept lazy fucktard.
How is providing a mountain of evidence qualify as not giving evidence?


Making assertions is not evidence, especially when those assertions are built upon your complete misunderstanding of anything even remotely close to the topics you're trying to talk about. You're a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Note for the slow: That's not a compliment.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I already stated my evidence is all the laws of science.


Laws you don't understand and misapply because of your gross ineptitude. Once again, not evidence. Not even fucking close.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you wish to win the debate provide something that contradicts the claim that the world can be created in 6 days.


Fuck you. If you are asserting a six day creation, something that contradicts all of the evidence available to us, it is upon you to provide evidence for your assertions. It's not the job of the skeptic to disprove unverified assertions, or else we'd be here all day trying to 'disprove' people who claim there are walruses juggling skulls on the surface of Pluto. That's all you have, unverified assertions; and that is not evidence for anything besides your own ineptitude.

Did you miss the day they taught the Null Hypothesis when you were learning all those 'laws of science' you're claiming as evidence?


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your geology class was superceded by the laws of Physics.


You understand neither.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I already showed you that your answer does not give a proper reference frame by which we can judge the age of the universe.


You have failed to even be arsed to define what any of that means, let alone provide evidence for it; presumably because you don't have a fucking clue what you are even talking about. Assertions pulled out of your ass that sound like Deepak Chopra on a weekend bender are not evidence for jack shit you inept fuktard.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have yet to refute that point.


You have yet to make one that needed refutation. You're own lack of evidence refutes itself dumbass.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All of mankind does not carry the same reference frame therefore we cannot determine an objective age of the universe.


Prove it. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 12:16 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 12:20 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
It takes a human being 9 months to "fully form" but oh no the entirety of the universe can from in just six days. Fuck me this guy is just such an obvious troll, and a lying sack of shit.

Edit: I'm also getting rather bored of this idiot just making up shit off the top of his head, refusing to define it, and then arguing as if it's a legitimate point. Fuckin' amateur hour with this cocksucker.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
23-01-2016, 12:20 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Not trying to prove it happened.
Only that it can happen without defying the laws of science.

Guess you have nothing to give huh?
Let me know when you ready to give up.

You didn't reference even ONE law of science.
You've proved nothing.
All you did was claim you thought it could.
You can't even define by what you mean by "stretching' much less prove it can happen.
In fact we know it can't. The orbits of electrons and relative distances of the components of matter are known. They don't stretch ... you fucking fake.
Agreed electrons don't stretch, but things that have mass do expand away from itself which is how the expanding bubble is described.
How does a non stretching electron disprove the expansion of the expanding bubble?
Does it prove that a bubble cannot expand?
Does it prove that a bubble cannot expand faster than light?
Does it prove that time does exist outside of the bubble's frame of reference?

What have you brought to the table? More irrelevant evidence that cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim.

Playing for a draw as usual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 12:21 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What have you brought to the table? More irrelevant evidence that cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim.

Null hypothesis bitch.

Prove your own claim first. You have the burden of proof, because you are the one making the assertion. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 12:53 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 01:52 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How is providing a mountain of evidence qualify as not giving evidence?


Making assertions is not evidence, especially when those assertions are built upon your complete misunderstanding of anything even remotely close to the topics you're trying to talk about. You're a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Note for the slow: That's not a compliment.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I already stated my evidence is all the laws of science.


Laws you don't understand and misapply because of your gross ineptitude. Once again, not evidence. Not even fucking close.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you wish to win the debate provide something that contradicts the claim that the world can be created in 6 days.


Fuck you. If you are asserting a six day creation, something that contradicts all of the evidence available to us, it is upon you to provide evidence for your assertions. It's not the job of the skeptic to disprove unverified assertions, or else we'd be here all day trying to 'disprove' people who claim there are walruses juggling skulls on the surface of Pluto. That's all you have, unverified assertions; and that is not evidence for anything besides your own ineptitude.

Did you miss the day they taught the Null Hypothesis when you were learning all those 'laws of science' you're claiming as evidence?


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your geology class was superceded by the laws of Physics.


You understand neither.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I already showed you that your answer does not give a proper reference frame by which we can judge the age of the universe.


You have failed to even be arsed to define what any of that means, let alone provide evidence for it; presumably because you don't have a fucking clue what you are even talking about. Assertions pulled out of your ass that sound like Deepak Chopra on a weekend bender are not evidence for jack shit you inept fuktard.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have yet to refute that point.


You have yet to make one that needed refutation. You're own lack of evidence refutes itself dumbass.


(22-01-2016 11:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All of mankind does not carry the same reference frame therefore we cannot determine an objective age of the universe.


Prove it. Drinking Beverage
From your reference frame:
Baby born on a jet in motion lives exactly 8 hours and dies.
The mother will have seen her baby live less than 8 hours & declare the baby is less than 8 hours old.
You will have seen that baby live exactly 8 hours and declare "no the baby is not less than 8 hours old"
Who is more correct about the age of the baby?
You can't tell now can you?

This is what time dilation is. Objects in motion age slower than objects not in motion based on a stationary reference frame.

In theory if the universe were a bubble and you moved towards the center of the bubble you will age increasingly faster.
If you move towards the edge of the bubble you will age increasingly slower.
If you reach the edge of the bubble you will not age at all.

Here is the spooky part
If you reach the exact center of the bubble you will not age at all either because you would also be moving at the same speed as the edge of the bubble
This means you could also exist in 2 places at the same time. Both at the center of the bubble and at the edge of the bubble because time is no longer relevant to you.

It is theoretically possible to travel to travel to both the center of the universe and also to the edge
To get to the edge you just need to sit still for a very very very long time provided we live long enough. Eventually the edge will pull you back. It's effects are seen when we measure galaxy distances over a period of time. They always increase in speed both away and towards each other.

To get to the center is not that easy but way more fun. We have to jump reference frames to go back in time to the beginning of creation.
Get on a vessel inside a vessel inside a vessel inside a vessel. You are launched from each vessel inside of another vessel whereby each launch increases your speed more than the last reference frame was moving at.
Considering that each jump exponentially increases the speed from the starting reference frame it wouldn't take you that long to achieve the speed of light.
Your not really going back in time really. Your just not letting it flow with you. If you stopped moving with time isn't it obvious your past will catch up with you?
Well that's what you are doing you aren't moving backwards in time, you are letting time catch up with you.
The point when you reach the speed of light will be the point when you reached the center of the universe. At which point the world stands still and you will be witnessing the creation of the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 01:00 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 01:05 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:53 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Making assertions is not evidence, especially when those assertions are built upon your complete misunderstanding of anything even remotely close to the topics you're trying to talk about. You're a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Note for the slow: That's not a compliment.




Laws you don't understand and misapply because of your gross ineptitude. Once again, not evidence. Not even fucking close.




Fuck you. If you are asserting a six day creation, something that contradicts all of the evidence available to us, it is upon you to provide evidence for your assertions. It's not the job of the skeptic to disprove unverified assertions, or else we'd be here all day trying to 'disprove' people who claim there are walruses juggling skulls on the surface of Pluto. That's all you have, unverified assertions; and that is not evidence for anything besides your own ineptitude.

Did you miss the day they taught the Null Hypothesis when you were learning all those 'laws of science' you're claiming as evidence?




You understand neither.




You have failed to even be arsed to define what any of that means, let alone provide evidence for it; presumably because you don't have a fucking clue what you are even talking about. Assertions pulled out of your ass that sound like Deepak Chopra on a weekend bender are not evidence for jack shit you inept fuktard.




You have yet to make one that needed refutation. You're own lack of evidence refutes itself dumbass.




Prove it. Drinking Beverage
From your reference frame:
Baby born on a jet in motion lives exactly 8 hours and dies.
The mother will have seen her baby live less than 8 hours & declare the baby is less than 8 hours old.
You will have seen that baby live exactly 8 hours and declare "no the baby is not less than 8 hours old"
Who is more correct about the age of the baby?
You can't tell now can you?

This is what time dilation is. Objects in motion age slower than objects not in motion based on a stationary reference frame.

In theory if the universe were a bubble and you moved towards the center of the bubble you will age increasingly faster.
If you move towards the edge of the bubble you will age increasingly slower.
If you reach the edge of the bubble you will not age at all.

Here is the spooky part
If you reach the exact center of the bubble you will not age at all either because you would also be moving at the same speed as the edge of the bubble
This means you could also exist in 2 places at the same time. Both at the center of the bubble and at the edge of the bubble because time is no longer relevant to you.

Provide evidence for your assertions. Merely asserting them is not evidence you inept fucktard. The bullet-points for a bad sci-fi novela are not evidence. Drinking Beverage

Plus, null hypothesis again bitch. For someone claiming the 'laws of science' as evidence (ProTip: It doesn't work that way, and if you knew anything about the scientific method, you'd already know that), you seem to know about fuck all.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 01:02 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 01:55 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What have you brought to the table? More irrelevant evidence that cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim.

Null hypothesis bitch.

Prove your own claim first. You have the burden of proof, because you are the one making the assertion. Drinking Beverage
Sorry I don't play by your rules.
I'm not going to prove it & even further provoke you because failure to prove me wrong only leaves us with a drawn debate.
All it takes for you to win is one piece of irrefutable evidence based on proven science. You are unable to use my own evidence against me.

Your arguing with an academic skeptic. I can only draw the debate. Whereas you have the power to win or draw, but never lose.
You have the advantage, all you need is just one piece of irrefutable evidence that is backed by science to win.

A drawn debate leaves us with an "I don't know" answer.
They are my favorite.
Don't you just love agnostics and skeptics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: