Unanswered questions by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(28-02-2013 03:50 PM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 02:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you had watched the video an made and made an actual attempt to understand, instead of clinging on to you ignorance (because your God lives in your ignorance), you would already have your answer.

That short enough for you? Or are three sentences too much of a strain for your brain?

Ive watched many videos that dont line up with eachother... and is a youtube video really your best argument? Can you actually give me an algorithm that cannot be countered by another to prove its true? Obviously not since if it were possible then the big bang would be fact... So why do you speak of this video like it actually means something logicaly?

Because I actually have watched it. The clip is of a theoretical physicists and professor, Lawrence M. Krauss, giving a talk at a conference in his chosen field of expertise. You would know this you stupid fuck, if you hadn't dismissed it without even watching it. Your understanding of science, what it is and how it is done, is childish at best. Judging by your grammar, I'd say you'd have trouble enough with Algebra, let alone the math involved in quantum mechanics. So who the fuck are you to out of hand dismiss the educated opinion of a theoretical physicist on his field of expertise? Your arrogance and ignorance are astounding...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-03-2013, 10:13 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
still waiting on that algorithm that cant be countered by any other
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(01-03-2013 10:14 PM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  still waiting on that algorithm that cant be countered by any other

It requires more than a single algorithm, it requires years of education you stupid fuck.

Proving that the sum of all internal angles for a right triangle is 180* does not, in and of itself, prove all of geometry. You are an intellectual ignoramus and I'm done with your purposefully ignorant bullshit.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 05:14 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
You are aware that algorithms are what einstein, newton, eddison, etc... Used to prove there theories as fact... and ofcourse a smart individual like yourself knows that we still use algorithms to sepparate fact from fiction... so im still waiting for your algorithm that cant be countered by any other that proves the big bang... if you cant find one on the internet to copy and paste its ok to say so
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
03-03-2013, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 07:35 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(28-02-2013 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We don't have faith. 'Faith' is belief without, or in the face of contradictory evidence. You have faith, because you believe without evidence. We don't have faith, we value evidence, and that is why most of us do not believe. Get your goddamn definitions right...

A starting point for the Big Bang? Quantum fluctuations in a flat universe (as opposed to opened or closed) with zero total energy (positive energy of matter offset by negative energy of gravity). We can prove the big bang, and a flat universe. Quantum mechanics tells us that whenever we have nothing, we get something.





If you believe in a big bang, you believe in it as matter of faith. Yes there is a big bang theory, but that theory only states that in the past the universe was in a hotter more dense state. It does not actually model a bang. The reason it does not model a bang is because prior to 10^-36 seconds its too hot for our current laws of physics and we do not have working physics for that temperature and above.

Now you may claim that we can extrapolate back to a big bang and therefore infer its existence. However in order to extrapolate anything one must know the rules of what it is you are extrapolating. For instance one rule of a line that it is a straight curve that passes through any two points. Armed with that knowledge you can extrapolate a line as far back or as far forward as you want provided you know one portion of the line(and the rule for a line). But what happens if the rule for a line you are using ceases to operate...can you continue to extrapolate? No... you cannot. The ability to extrapolation is dependent on knowledge of the rules in effect. The same is true for the big bang. Because our laws of physics breaks down before the bang, we can't model it, we can't say with any credibility that it actually happened. We can't even infer it happened by extrapolation. We believe it happened as a matter of faith.

Modern physics still has to jump start the universe to have a working model, just like the thiest of old.
Krauss' universe from nothing is based on physics which we have no confidence that they actually work at the time of the inception of the universe....and thats an optimistic view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(03-03-2013 06:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We don't have faith. 'Faith' is belief without, or in the face of contradictory evidence. You have faith, because you believe without evidence. We don't have faith, we value evidence, and that is why most of us do not believe. Get your goddamn definitions right...

A starting point for the Big Bang? Quantum fluctuations in a flat universe (as opposed to opened or closed) with zero total energy (positive energy of matter offset by negative energy of gravity). We can prove the big bang, and a flat universe. Quantum mechanics tells us that whenever we have nothing, we get something.




If you believe in a big bang, you believe in it as matter of faith. Yes there is a big bang theory, but that theory only states that in the past the universe was in a hotter more dense state. It does not actually model a bang. The reason it does not model a bang is because prior to 10^-36 seconds its too hot for our current laws of physics and we do not have working physics for that temperature and above.

Now you may claim that we can extrapolate back to a big bang and therefore infer its existence. However in order to extrapolate anything one must know the rules of what it is you are extrapolating. For instance one rule of a line that it is a straight curve that passes through any two points. Armed with that knowledge you can extrapolate a line as far back or as far forward as you want provided you know one portion of the line(and the rule for a line). But what happens if the rule for a line you are using ceases to operate...can you continue to extrapolate? No... you cannot. The ability to extrapolation is dependent on knowledge of the rules in effect. The same is true for the big bang. Because our laws of physics breaks down before the bang, we can't model it, we can't say with any credibility that it actually happened. We can't even infer it happened by extrapolation. We believe it happened as a matter of faith.

Modern physics still has to jump start the universe to have a working model, just like the thiest of old.


Your error here is that a scientist doesn't "believe in" the Big Bang, it is just a model, just a possibility - it is not an article of faith.
It is replaceable by something with better explanatory power.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-03-2013, 02:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 02:36 PM by Phaedrus.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(03-03-2013 06:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We don't have faith. 'Faith' is belief without, or in the face of contradictory evidence. You have faith, because you believe without evidence. We don't have faith, we value evidence, and that is why most of us do not believe. Get your goddamn definitions right...

A starting point for the Big Bang? Quantum fluctuations in a flat universe (as opposed to opened or closed) with zero total energy (positive energy of matter offset by negative energy of gravity). We can prove the big bang, and a flat universe. Quantum mechanics tells us that whenever we have nothing, we get something.





If you believe in a big bang, you believe in it as matter of faith. Yes there is a big bang theory, but that theory only states that in the past the universe was in a hotter more dense state. It does not actually model a bang. The reason it does not model a bang is because prior to 10^-36 seconds its too hot for our current laws of physics and we do not have working physics for that temperature and above.

Now you may claim that we can extrapolate back to a big bang and therefore infer its existence. However in order to extrapolate anything one must know the rules of what it is you are extrapolating. For instance one rule of a line that it is a straight curve that passes through any two points. Armed with that knowledge you can extrapolate a line as far back or as far forward as you want provided you know one portion of the line(and the rule for a line). But what happens if the rule for a line you are using ceases to operate...can you continue to extrapolate? No... you cannot. The ability to extrapolation is dependent on knowledge of the rules in effect. The same is true for the big bang. Because our laws of physics breaks down before the bang, we can't model it, we can't say with any credibility that it actually happened. We can't even infer it happened by extrapolation. We believe it happened as a matter of faith.

Modern physics still has to jump start the universe to have a working model, just like the thiest of old.
Krauss' universe from nothing is based on physics which we have no confidence that they actually work at the time of the inception of the universe....and thats an optimistic view.


Your ignorance of cosmology rivals your ignorance of biology.

The Big Bang can be empirically confirmed by observation all the way back to approx. 100 seconds after it happened. Our physics is sufficient to handle the conditions and theoretically model up to approx. 1 second after the big bang. Speculative studies have gone as far as a microsecond after the big bang; but these are speculative and are known to be so.

The Big Bang is not some theoretical boondoggle. It was deduced and confirmed by observation. The joke in my signature came from a joke based on one of the most successful experiments of all time, which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the universe expanded from a point source: the Cosmic Background Explorer probe, whose measurements of the cosmic microwave background matched our predictions of the black body curve of an expanding universe so closely that you can't see the error bars on a graph that will fit on a chalkboard.

[Image: 600px-Cmbr.svg.png]

To make this simple, the curve is what is theoretically predicted by Big Bang cosmology. The Xs are the experimental results. The error bars are too small to see. The theory came first and the experiment confirmed it. Although explanations of what caused the Big Bang are varied and hypothetical in nature, the fact that the Big Bang happened is accepted by all cosmologists, and not on faith; on the basis of evidence and logic.

Quod Erat Demonstrandem, bitches.





It doesn't take faith to consider that credible. Just to deny it.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
03-03-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Man phaedrus how are you going to keep callin people ignorant? You dont even know what an algorithm is and stiil take theory as fact... And then you use the word empirical but have no idea what it means... and your still pasting stuff from the internet with no actual understanding of it.... but everyone else is ignorant except you right? Are you just on here to prove somethin to all of us or are you willing to learn?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: