The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Rolleyes

This is why the 1v1 debate format has been so successful in the past.

I'm out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:14 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 05:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not discussing the existence of something. If I were then I need to provide the evidence for the existence of that something in my presentation.
I have given an example of how it is possible to create the world in 6 days.
them

I know full well what you think you trying to do. You failed.
You picked some concepts you heard about, assembled them into a story in an entirely fictional manner, a manner that is UNTESTABLE, (even while claiming they were "scientific").

(22-01-2016 08:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I intend to prove all evidence suggest that it is scientifically possible to create the universe in 6 days using only scientific principles.

I'm well aware of that. You used no "scientific principles". You think you did, but all you did was use sciencey words. To prove your story is possible, you must reference us to the "principles" and to the fact they can be manipulated into 6 epochs, by a "creator". You probably meant "the universe could be formed" in 6 periods, but that's not what you said.

(22-01-2016 08:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I showed a creation event that I believe does not defy the laws of science.
I cited examples of how the laws of science were applied as evidence to support my claim.

You provided no "laws" to even attempt to refute.
What "laws" are you claiming you gave ?
You made up a lame story, and think it sounds "all sciencey".
You have no clue what you are babbling about.
The inflationary epoch proceeded FASTER that the speed of light.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topi...ation.html

"Technically, the expansion during this period of inflation (and even the somewhat slower expansion which succeeded it) proceeded faster than the speed of light. To explain how this is possible (the speed of light being supposedly the maximum speed it is possible to travel), an analogy may help. If two airplanes are flying directly away from each other at their maximum speed of, say, 500 kilometres per hour, they are actually flying apart at 1,000 kilometres per hour even though neither individual plane is exceeding 500km per hour. Thus, "expansion", in terms of the expanding universe, is not the same thing as "travel".

It is still not clear to scientists, however, exactly what caused the inflationary phase, the best guess being some kind of a negative "vacuum energy density" (or positive "vacuum pressure") triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force from the other elementary forces at this time. It is hypothesized that this separation caused a kind of symmetry breaking or phase transition (analagous to the phase transition when water turns to ice), which left the universe in a highly unstable state with much more energy than it would otherwise have had, causing a sharp outward antigravitational effect, smoothing out most of the irregularities in the existing matter and creating vast quantities of particles in a very short time.

There is no "law" in science that even talks about what you're on about.
Here are the "laws of science".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Tell us, which ones PROVE your stupid story.
I say every law in science either proves or is not relevant to my story.
I use this site as my reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Any law that is written there that proves my story wrong will end this debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:17 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-01-2016 10:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-01-2016 10:16 PM)cactus Wrote:  Logically possible?
Sure, I guess if you assume that the creator is a childish asshole who's really bored and loves to trick people out of their eternal salvation. Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.
No I am arguing from Science.
[Image: hilarious-laughing-gifs-for-every-occasion_16.gif]

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
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
22-01-2016, 06:20 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

Nope, you posted that you were going to present science. Not that you were going to link through to other articles on science.

Still failing to live up/stand up for your opening post.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:14 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  them

I know full well what you think you trying to do. You failed.
You picked some concepts you heard about, assembled them into a story in an entirely fictional manner, a manner that is UNTESTABLE, (even while claiming they were "scientific").


I'm well aware of that. You used no "scientific principles". You think you did, but all you did was use sciencey words. To prove your story is possible, you must reference us to the "principles" and to the fact they can be manipulated into 6 epochs, by a "creator". You probably meant "the universe could be formed" in 6 periods, but that's not what you said.


You provided no "laws" to even attempt to refute.
What "laws" are you claiming you gave ?
You made up a lame story, and think it sounds "all sciencey".
You have no clue what you are babbling about.
The inflationary epoch proceeded FASTER that the speed of light.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topi...ation.html

"Technically, the expansion during this period of inflation (and even the somewhat slower expansion which succeeded it) proceeded faster than the speed of light. To explain how this is possible (the speed of light being supposedly the maximum speed it is possible to travel), an analogy may help. If two airplanes are flying directly away from each other at their maximum speed of, say, 500 kilometres per hour, they are actually flying apart at 1,000 kilometres per hour even though neither individual plane is exceeding 500km per hour. Thus, "expansion", in terms of the expanding universe, is not the same thing as "travel".

It is still not clear to scientists, however, exactly what caused the inflationary phase, the best guess being some kind of a negative "vacuum energy density" (or positive "vacuum pressure") triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force from the other elementary forces at this time. It is hypothesized that this separation caused a kind of symmetry breaking or phase transition (analagous to the phase transition when water turns to ice), which left the universe in a highly unstable state with much more energy than it would otherwise have had, causing a sharp outward antigravitational effect, smoothing out most of the irregularities in the existing matter and creating vast quantities of particles in a very short time.

There is no "law" in science that even talks about what you're on about.
Here are the "laws of science".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Tell us, which ones PROVE your stupid story.
I say every law in science either proves or is not relevant to my story.
I use this site as my reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Any law that is written there that proves my story wrong will end this debate.

No. YOU have to show YOUR story is consistent (AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD) with the laws, and tell us which ones you are talking about.

There is another fundamental flaw in your nonsense.
At the event horizon of a singularity, all "laws" break down.
You have NOT A CLUE what you're doing.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topi...ities.html

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
22-01-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:14 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  them

I know full well what you think you trying to do. You failed.
You picked some concepts you heard about, assembled them into a story in an entirely fictional manner, a manner that is UNTESTABLE, (even while claiming they were "scientific").


I'm well aware of that. You used no "scientific principles". You think you did, but all you did was use sciencey words. To prove your story is possible, you must reference us to the "principles" and to the fact they can be manipulated into 6 epochs, by a "creator". You probably meant "the universe could be formed" in 6 periods, but that's not what you said.


You provided no "laws" to even attempt to refute.
What "laws" are you claiming you gave ?
You made up a lame story, and think it sounds "all sciencey".
You have no clue what you are babbling about.
The inflationary epoch proceeded FASTER that the speed of light.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topi...ation.html

"Technically, the expansion during this period of inflation (and even the somewhat slower expansion which succeeded it) proceeded faster than the speed of light. To explain how this is possible (the speed of light being supposedly the maximum speed it is possible to travel), an analogy may help. If two airplanes are flying directly away from each other at their maximum speed of, say, 500 kilometres per hour, they are actually flying apart at 1,000 kilometres per hour even though neither individual plane is exceeding 500km per hour. Thus, "expansion", in terms of the expanding universe, is not the same thing as "travel".

It is still not clear to scientists, however, exactly what caused the inflationary phase, the best guess being some kind of a negative "vacuum energy density" (or positive "vacuum pressure") triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force from the other elementary forces at this time. It is hypothesized that this separation caused a kind of symmetry breaking or phase transition (analagous to the phase transition when water turns to ice), which left the universe in a highly unstable state with much more energy than it would otherwise have had, causing a sharp outward antigravitational effect, smoothing out most of the irregularities in the existing matter and creating vast quantities of particles in a very short time.

There is no "law" in science that even talks about what you're on about.
Here are the "laws of science".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Tell us, which ones PROVE your stupid story.
I say every law in science either proves or is not relevant to my story.
I use this site as my reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Any law that is written there that proves my story wrong will end this debate.

YOU must tell us how your story PROVES what you claim, AND is consistent with each "law".

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
22-01-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 04:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A man once wrote that the catalyst of creation told him that it created the world in 6 days

I am here today to prove that this is theoretically possible to do using only science.

Here goes:

A bubble with finite mass was the only thing that existed. Not even time exists yet.
It inflated at the speed of light & parts came off inside the bubble.
It stopped inflating 7 times for 24 hour intervals
Some of these parts that were closer to the edge of the bubble had consciousness.
The bubble stopped inflating on the 7th occasion and was able to communicate with anything inside itself.
It then said to one of its parts I have created your world in 6 days

If you understand Time Dilation you cannot deny that this is theoretically possible.
A bubble can expand from within, it does not gain mass, only stretches.
Anything on the edge of the bubble moving at the speed of light that is still connected to the surface of the bubble will not have aged a single second for all of eternity
Any thing that drops off will remain in the exact location within the bubble right until the bubble stops inflating
Time does not exist from the perspective of the bubble until it stops inflating.
The bubble can only start counting time on the 7 occasions it stopped inflating.

The bubble did create the universe in 6 days using exactly what science has thought us.
And on the 7th day it rested.

Let the battle begin!
[Image: Bill-Nye-No-Fucking-Sense.gif?gs=a]

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
22-01-2016, 06:31 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:20 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Nope, you posted that you were going to present science. Not that you were going to link through to other articles on science.

Still failing to live up/stand up for your opening post.

Drinking Beverage
The science I am presenting is every scientific article ever written. I am stating they all either proves it is possible or doesn't prove that it isn't.
I do not wish to post millions of pages worth of science here to clutter the thread.
I posted a link to all scientific laws.
Just prove one thing I said to be scientifically impossible and you win.

There couldn't have been an easier way to lose a debate than to call all of science as my evidence.
Just 1 sentence contrary to scientific evidence is all you need to end this debate.
The lack of evidence is not evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lack of evidence is not evidence for ... the existence of ... something.
If it was then God would exist.

My my my.
How his tune has CHANGED. Now he says a lack of evidence (against) proves him right. Weeping

Quote:I intend to prove all evidence suggest that it is scientifically possible to create the universe in 6 days using only scientific principles.

Give us all the evidence, or STFU.

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
22-01-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:14 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I say every law in science either proves or is not relevant to my story.
I use this site as my reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Any law that is written there that proves my story wrong will end this debate.

YOU must tell us how your story PROVES what you claim, AND is consistent with each "law".
Failure to do so doesn't make my statement false.
If I fail to provide evidence and you fail to provide evidence then the debate ends in a draw.
No side wins.
My evidence is every law of science.
Some may be irrelevant but that doesn't prove me wrong.
Those that are relevant can prove me wrong.
Bring just one that proves me wrong and the debate is over.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: