The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 05:14 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.


They're not my rules, they're the 'rules of science' that you so erroneously like to throw around. The null hypothesis is there to prevent every single unverifiable claim (like the aforementioned skull juggling walruses on Pluto) from masquerading as facts or knowledge. But of course since this is inconvenient for one who merely likes to assert bullshit without doing the actually legwork of providing evidence to support it, I can understand how you'd balk at the idea.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not going to prove it & even further provoke you because failure to prove me wrong only leaves us with a drawn debate.


Debate? Aw, that's so cute! You're that stupid? You think that this is actually a debate? You're under the impression that you've brought anything of substance to the table with you?

It's not, it's a three ring circus and you're the main attraction.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All it takes for you to win is one piece of irrefutable evidence based on proven science. You can even use my own evidence against me.


Nope. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Since you haven't provided evidence to back up your claims (once again, mere assertions are not evidence, you ignoramus), nobody needs any additional evidence to dismiss your claims as anything but the vapid bullshit it evidently is.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your arguing with an academic skeptic.


No, I'm having a laugh at a buffoon who fundamentally does not understand the words he's using. You're not a skeptic, not even close. 'Academic skeptic' is a code word for 'idiot who'd rather make shit up because he doesn't like the professional consensus'. Nobody does, or should, care what an uninformed idiot thinks about anything; let alone the origins of the universe.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I can only draw the debate. Whereas you have the power to win or draw, but never lose.


You're an idiot who fundamentally lacks an understanding of basic reasoning, logic, the evaluation of evidence, the burden of proof, and the scientific method, among many, many other things. You're literally a one-man parade of ineptitude and proud ignorance.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have the advantage, all you need is just one piece of irrefutable evidence that is backed by science to win.


Null hypothesis bitch. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to show why you're correct (you're the one making the claims here after all) in light of the current academic consensus that roundly disagrees with your uninformed and vapid bullshit.

Good luck.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A drawn debate leaves us with an "I don't know" answer.


You clearly don't know, and the fact that you are claiming otherwise is to your own detriment, you fucking dumbass. Once again, your parade of ineptitude and ignorance does not a debate make.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  They are my favorite.
Don't you just love agnostics and skeptics?



You fundamentally don't understand what either of those terms mean, thanks for making that abundantly clear.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 04:26 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 04:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:00 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(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.

I'm not here to win anything. You said you would do something. You failed and everyone on TTA except you understands that. You are so completely ignorant you had to be given the very rules you said your stupid story was consistent with. Your bubble was destroyed three ways to Sunday, but you are too stupid and arrogant and ignorant to even get why. You never even defined your terms. You think making a claim is proof of something. you said no evidence is not evidence, then turn around and claim a win by that very thing.

You are too stupid and dishonest to even bother with. Debates are not won by 1 person claiming they won, and EVERYONE else saying they failed. That situation demonstrates you are out of touch with reality.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-01-2016, 04:35 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-01-2016 09:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hello all.
Some Theists claim the world was created in 6 days.
Most Atheists claim this is not possible based on Emperical Evidence.

I would like to debate the possibility that the current world can be created in 6 days.
I believe it can be.

I challenge anyone on these forums.

Lastly I personally don't know if God exists.

The earth is 4 billion years old, that is not in dispute by scientists. Anyone claiming otherwise is gullible or flat out lying.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
23-01-2016, 04:48 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 12:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agreed electrons don't stretch, but things that have mass do expand away from itself which is how the expanding bubble is described.

Fucking retard. Changing the subject as usual. YOU said "matter stretches", and cannot say how, or why, or anyone else who agrees with that nonsense. You idiot bubble was long ago destroyed by Paleophyte. Discussing your "bubble" is not what was asked of you. YOU said matter stretches. Tell us what that means.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-01-2016, 04:52 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 04:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agreed electrons don't stretch, but things that have mass do expand away from itself which is how the expanding bubble is described.

Fucking retard. Changing the subject as usual. YOU said "matter stretches", and cannot say how, or why, or anyone else who agrees with that nonsense. You idiot bubble was long ago destroyed by Paleophyte. Discussing your "bubble" is not what was asked of you. YOU said matter stretches. Tell us what that means.

Well, things maaaatttttteeeeeeerrrrrrrr.......

Wink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
23-01-2016, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 06:06 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 02:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Sorry I don't play by your rules.


They're not my rules, they're the 'rules of science' that you so erroneously like to throw around. The null hypothesis is there to prevent every single unverifiable claim (like the aforementioned skull juggling walruses on Pluto) from masquerading as facts or knowledge. But of course since this is inconvenient for one who merely likes to assert bullshit without doing the actually legwork of providing evidence to support it, I can understand how you'd balk at the idea.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not going to prove it & even further provoke you because failure to prove me wrong only leaves us with a drawn debate.


Debate? Aw, that's so cute! You're that stupid? You think that this is actually a debate? You're under the impression that you've brought anything of substance to the table with you?

It's not, it's a three ring circus and you're the main attraction.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All it takes for you to win is one piece of irrefutable evidence based on proven science. You can even use my own evidence against me.


Nope. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Since you haven't provided evidence to back up your claims (once again, mere assertions are not evidence, you ignoramus), nobody needs any additional evidence to dismiss your claims as anything but the vapid bullshit it evidently is.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your arguing with an academic skeptic.


No, I'm having a laugh at a buffoon who fundamentally does not understand the words he's using. You're not a skeptic, not even close. 'Academic skeptic' is a code word for 'idiot who'd rather make shit up because he doesn't like the professional consensus'. Nobody does, or should, care what an uninformed idiot thinks about anything; let alone the origins of the universe.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I can only draw the debate. Whereas you have the power to win or draw, but never lose.


You're an idiot who fundamentally lacks an understanding of basic reasoning, logic, the evaluation of evidence, the burden of proof, and the scientific method, among many, many other things. You're literally a one-man parade of ineptitude and proud ignorance.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have the advantage, all you need is just one piece of irrefutable evidence that is backed by science to win.


Null hypothesis bitch. I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to show why you're correct (you're the one making the claims here after all) in light of the current academic consensus that roundly disagrees with your uninformed and vapid bullshit.

Good luck.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A drawn debate leaves us with an "I don't know" answer.


You clearly don't know, and the fact that you are claiming otherwise is to your own detriment, you fucking dumbass. Once again, your parade of ineptitude and ignorance does not a debate make.



(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  They are my favorite.
Don't you just love agnostics and skeptics?



You fundamentally don't understand what either of those terms mean, thanks for making that abundantly clear.
A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance).

The Null Hypothesis is not being made on my end.
You are claiming the universe is a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective Frame of Reference (regardless of how we as humans see it)
You have only provided evidence for your claim from a Human Frame of Reference.

Your hypothesis is not supported by your evidence because you have made the assumption of a Human Reference Frame being an Objective Reference frame.

In my claim I am using the Frame of Reference of the Catalyst of Creation to prove that the human Frame of Reference is not the only frame of reference there is & is therefore not necessarily an objective Frame of Reference.

You are committing the Null Hypothesis here:
The common understanding is that the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years.

It is based on a research that calibrates age from the average Human Reference Frame.

I question the validity of the claim that the earth is a minimum of 13 billion years on the grounds that:
An average human reference frame is invalid in this particular story because the being said to have made the claim is reportedly not a human.

Therefore anything making a claim to the age of anything must make that claim from from it's own reference frame.

If you do not accept the reference frame of the reported claimant as an objective one then why should I accept a human frame of reference as an objective one also?

If time dilation was not an accepted scientific fact then my argument has no basis & I would yield the debate in favor of your claim.

You said "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

I am not claiming that the universe was created in 6 days.
I am claiming that I can be created in 6 days.
You & mostly everyone here is of the assumption that it was created in a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective frame of reference.

I have given evidence that the age varies dependent on frame of reference.
I have also shown that you are using a Human Reference Frame on the assumption that it is an objective frame of reference.
It stands to reason that because of Time Dilation the universe's age can vary based on Reference Frames.
Therefore the universe can be younger than 13 billion years old.
There is no claim here that the universe is 6 days old.
If you assume this is what you are arguing against then you have not accepted the challenge & I ask that you leave the debate if you are unwilling to argue the topic of discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 06:01 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

On the basis of consistent academic skeptic principals. I deny the validity of your argument.

You have a problem demonstrating that you're just talking to talk. Saying things like "I question the validity of the claim the (EARTH) is minimum of (13) billion years" Not actually articulately stating concepts you're thinking through before you type them. Which is why this is a sophomoric affair for someone wanting a "proper" debate. You constantly shift the argument, for some reason you can't keep it straight. The reason for that is?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
23-01-2016, 06:11 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 06:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 01:02 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?

On the basis of consistent academic skeptic principals. I deny the validity of your argument.

You have a problem demonstrating that you're just talking to talk. Saying things like "I question the validity of the claim the (EARTH) is minimum of (13) billion years" Not actually articulately stating concepts you're thinking through before you type them. Which is why this is a sophomoric affair for someone wanting a "proper" debate. You constantly shift the argument, for some reason you can't keep it straight. The reason for that is?
The claim is that "the universe can be created in 6 days" and not:
"the universe was created in 6 days"
If anyone here is debating the latter & do not wish to discuss the topic up for debate then I ask that you leave the Colloseum on the grounds that you do not wish to debate the topic.
Let me know what you decide before we proceed any further.
Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 06:18 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 04:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agreed electrons don't stretch, but things that have mass do expand away from itself which is how the expanding bubble is described.

Fucking retard. Changing the subject as usual. YOU said "matter stretches", and cannot say how, or why, or anyone else who agrees with that nonsense. You idiot bubble was long ago destroyed by Paleophyte. Discussing your "bubble" is not what was asked of you. YOU said matter stretches. Tell us what that means.
I rebutted Paleophyte on the grounds that the evidence he provided is not proven by science and is therefore inadmissible in the current debate.
The very website he posted states that their theory is an assumption.
To date he has not denied my objection.

How has he destroyed the debate?
Why are you being this dishonest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 06:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 06:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  On the basis of consistent academic skeptic principals. I deny the validity of your argument.

You have a problem demonstrating that you're just talking to talk. Saying things like "I question the validity of the claim the (EARTH) is minimum of (13) billion years" Not actually articulately stating concepts you're thinking through before you type them. Which is why this is a sophomoric affair for someone wanting a "proper" debate. You constantly shift the argument, for some reason you can't keep it straight. The reason for that is?
The claim is that "the universe can be created in 6 days" and not:
"the universe was created in 6 days"
If anyone here is debating the latter & do not wish to discuss the topic up for debate then I ask that you leave the Colloseum on the grounds that you do not wish to debate the topic.
Let me know what you decide before we proceed any further.
Thanks.

So you respond more to a post I made multiple posts ago opposed to the current one? Your still leaving loose holes in your established claim. What is "the universe" is it our universe as it is now? Our universe though the 6 days may of been the creation but thousands of years have been able to follow onward after that initial 6 days? You continually fail to make a clarified specific argument.

It's worth investigating when other arguments are provided what you think of them. Because you're talking about an argument that I don't see anyone making in your contrast to your argument. That the earth was 13 billion years old.

I deny the validity of your argument, I don't not think I know if you can know anything, I mean ANYthing, you state. Nor do I think you can know that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: