Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Better theory than the Big Bang?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:31:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

I agree. An eternal multiverse sounds far more logical.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:34:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
universes can flow into new ones.

A big bang is when the matter from one universe explodes into the new dimension. After all the matter is present, either a black hole (wormhole) or big crunch shoots everything else into another dimension.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 5:40:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Apart from the last two questions, which are rendered obsolete by the fact that space came into existence at the Big Bang, those questions are not answered by the Big Bang theory. It isn't a fault of the theory, it just doesn't encompass an explanation of those things. Faulting it for that is like faulting evolutionary theory for not explaining how magnets work.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:34:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Everything falls to infinite regress, Tiel. And not just mainstream scientific theory.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 9:33:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

We are not expected to undergo the big crunch based on current mathematical models of the amount of matter in our universe and the projected velocities of said matter.

We should experience entropic heat-death, where everything spreads out and homogenizes completely, every chemical bond decays, and the entire universe is a soup of identical temperature, slowly spreading out toward infinity while temperatures continue to drop toward nothing.
Rob
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 6:37:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:34:37 AM, seraine wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Everything falls to infinite regress, Tiel. And not just mainstream scientific theory.

Eternity is the only answer. The ancients had different names for this concept, in the modern western world, this concept is most commonly called God. Though not the God from the bible. People forget that that God actually has a name. Calling it "God" is like calling me "man". God is a concept, YHWH is a name.

Either way, until science starts including some other forms of methodology besides just the physical, repeatable, and measurable...it will be a long time before it finds the truth. If the universe truly is conscious, then it will hardly be predictable in certain areas. In this way, science could hardly understand the universe any better than you can understand someone by looking at one of their cells. Try telling me why I created my tv stand from looking at one of my cells. It's nonsense.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 7:22:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:37:16 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:34:37 AM, seraine wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Everything falls to infinite regress, Tiel. And not just mainstream scientific theory.

Eternity is the only answer. The ancients had different names for this concept, in the modern western world, this concept is most commonly called God. Though not the God from the bible. People forget that that God actually has a name. Calling it "God" is like calling me "man". God is a concept, YHWH is a name.

Either way, until science starts including some other forms of methodology besides just the physical, repeatable, and measurable...it will be a long time before it finds the truth. If the universe truly is conscious, then it will hardly be predictable in certain areas. In this way, science could hardly understand the universe any better than you can understand someone by looking at one of their cells. Try telling me why I created my tv stand from looking at one of my cells. It's nonsense.

Let's get this straight.

You hold that the big bang theory is NECESSARILY false?

I just want you on record. It's great to see you taking a stand on an empirical issue.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:40:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.

No, I never said that 97% of our non-coding DNA comes from aliens. I said that it is possible. Quit putting words into my mouth.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:48:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 7:22:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:37:16 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:34:37 AM, seraine wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Everything falls to infinite regress, Tiel. And not just mainstream scientific theory.

Eternity is the only answer. The ancients had different names for this concept, in the modern western world, this concept is most commonly called God. Though not the God from the bible. People forget that that God actually has a name. Calling it "God" is like calling me "man". God is a concept, YHWH is a name.

Either way, until science starts including some other forms of methodology besides just the physical, repeatable, and measurable...it will be a long time before it finds the truth. If the universe truly is conscious, then it will hardly be predictable in certain areas. In this way, science could hardly understand the universe any better than you can understand someone by looking at one of their cells. Try telling me why I created my tv stand from looking at one of my cells. It's nonsense.

Let's get this straight.

You hold that the big bang theory is NECESSARILY false?

I just want you on record. It's great to see you taking a stand on an empirical issue.

No, I said that it is possibly false. I do personally feel that there is some truth to it's assertion, but that the rest of what it asserts is ridiculous. In order for everything to have been in a single point and have exploded into some location. The location of the point must have had coordinates inside an already existing location. I think it is logical to conclude that certain assertions made by the theory are valid, but that others are not.

You can go on record quoting this. Nothing else.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 3:48:29 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:22:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:37:16 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 8:34:37 AM, seraine wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Everything falls to infinite regress, Tiel. And not just mainstream scientific theory.

Eternity is the only answer. The ancients had different names for this concept, in the modern western world, this concept is most commonly called God. Though not the God from the bible. People forget that that God actually has a name. Calling it "God" is like calling me "man". God is a concept, YHWH is a name.

Either way, until science starts including some other forms of methodology besides just the physical, repeatable, and measurable...it will be a long time before it finds the truth. If the universe truly is conscious, then it will hardly be predictable in certain areas. In this way, science could hardly understand the universe any better than you can understand someone by looking at one of their cells. Try telling me why I created my tv stand from looking at one of my cells. It's nonsense.

Let's get this straight.

You hold that the big bang theory is NECESSARILY false?

I just want you on record. It's great to see you taking a stand on an empirical issue.

No, I said that it is possibly false. I do personally feel that there is some truth to it's assertion, but that the rest of what it asserts is ridiculous. In order for everything to have been in a single point and have exploded into some location. The location of the point must have had coordinates inside an already existing location. I think it is logical to conclude that certain assertions made by the theory are valid, but that others are not.

You can go on record quoting this. Nothing else.

"Eternity is the only answer."

Do you hold this true? Or are you retracting your statement?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:57:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 3:40:47 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.

No, I never said that 97% of our non-coding DNA comes from aliens. I said that it is possible. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Are you ever going to stand behind your sources? Or do you just throw out whatever you see that might resemble evidence and then run when it is challenged?

Again, to assert that it is a possibility with significant chance (because almost anything, at some level of probability, is possible), you would need to have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, especially as it relates to the human genome.

If I put forward an article that claimed that 97% of the bones in our body had absolutely no correlation to bones found in chimps, you would rightfully assume I have a pretty fundamental ignorance of comparative biology.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:57:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Gotta love M-theory

http://www.branebrain.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 6:36:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The big bang doesn't necessarily claim that everything comes from nothing.

I'm sure that it's been mentioned before, but there are a few ideas. Chaotic Inflation Theory, and the idea that the universe is cyclical. They both are offshoots of the Big Bang though.

The point is, the Big Bang is supposed to mark the beginning of the universe's current form, not the.. actual beginning of existence.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:45:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 6:36:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The big bang doesn't necessarily claim that everything comes from nothing.

I'm sure that it's been mentioned before, but there are a few ideas. Chaotic Inflation Theory, and the idea that the universe is cyclical. They both are offshoots of the Big Bang though.

The point is, the Big Bang is supposed to mark the beginning of the universe's current form, not the.. actual beginning of existence.

Yeah, I hear ya. I open to the different concepts. Also, I'm moving back to Chicago on Wednesday. We can go get some beers one of these days. What area do you usually go drinking around? Hit me up with a PM if you want.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:52:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 3:57:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 3:40:47 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.

No, I never said that 97% of our non-coding DNA comes from aliens. I said that it is possible. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Are you ever going to stand behind your sources? Or do you just throw out whatever you see that might resemble evidence and then run when it is challenged?

Again, to assert that it is a possibility with significant chance (because almost anything, at some level of probability, is possible), you would need to have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, especially as it relates to the human genome.

If I put forward an article that claimed that 97% of the bones in our body had absolutely no correlation to bones found in chimps, you would rightfully assume I have a pretty fundamental ignorance of comparative biology.

You are beating a dead horse Wnope. You keep coming at me from the same boring angle. You are way too full of yourself. As I said before, I don't hold anything you say with much weight. You are not credible to me and your views are completely biased. I understand that you are pissed off that I don't follow the mainstream scientific bias, but get over it already. There is plenty of evidence that goes against your views. I'm not gonna list it all. It's a waste of my time, as you would just find some seemingly rational way to judge such evidence as invalid. I would rather use my time and energy on people who are open to possibility and that do not hold a strong bias against such concepts. I don't have time to be wasting on you and your rivalry with me Monkeyboy. I'm married and have better things to do with my time.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 9:41:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 8:52:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/26/2011 3:57:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 3:40:47 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.

No, I never said that 97% of our non-coding DNA comes from aliens. I said that it is possible. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Are you ever going to stand behind your sources? Or do you just throw out whatever you see that might resemble evidence and then run when it is challenged?

Again, to assert that it is a possibility with significant chance (because almost anything, at some level of probability, is possible), you would need to have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, especially as it relates to the human genome.

If I put forward an article that claimed that 97% of the bones in our body had absolutely no correlation to bones found in chimps, you would rightfully assume I have a pretty fundamental ignorance of comparative biology.

You are beating a dead horse Wnope. You keep coming at me from the same boring angle. You are way too full of yourself. As I said before, I don't hold anything you say with much weight. You are not credible to me and your views are completely biased. I understand that you are pissed off that I don't follow the mainstream scientific bias, but get over it already. There is plenty of evidence that goes against your views. I'm not gonna list it all. It's a waste of my time, as you would just find some seemingly rational way to judge such evidence as invalid. I would rather use my time and energy on people who are open to possibility and that do not hold a strong bias against such concepts. I don't have time to be wasting on you and your rivalry with me Monkeyboy. I'm married and have better things to do with my time.

Do you hold that eternity is necessary?

Please, Tiel, don't sink to the "my non ddo life pwns yours," it's sad.

I find it interesting you address the issue yet refuse to provide evidence.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 10:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:41:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 8:52:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/26/2011 3:57:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 3:40:47 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:21:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:30:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

And I'm sure you believe that just like everything else they feed you. What do they say existed before the big bang? Where did the substance of the big bang come from? What location did the singularity exist in? What was around it?

there are many unanswered questions. In my opinion, the theory is ridiculous.

Actually, quite a bit of what I learned in school was mistaken or later found to be different. For instance, I was taught that the universe was expanding at a decreasing rate. I was also taught that (the b@stards) your taste buds are clustered in little bunches and aren't spread all over your tongue. Made me feel like a culinary freak during 5th grade science class.

My bio class taught me there is no inheritance mechanism other than genetics. Not true.

You just make assertions. I actually study these things.

For instance, you asserted 97% of our non-coding DNA probably comes from aliens.

That show no ability to think critically about biology. Unless you have never studied biology, that is.

Maybe, if it was something like 10% or ever 15% of non-coding, I might take it more seriously. But 97%? And though the entire human genome is open for viewing, only classified government scientists make press releases about it?

Are you asserting that there has been an infinite cycle of big bangs, or that there was no big bang? Because the latter one we have multiple lines of independent evidence.

No, I never said that 97% of our non-coding DNA comes from aliens. I said that it is possible. Quit putting words into my mouth.

Are you ever going to stand behind your sources? Or do you just throw out whatever you see that might resemble evidence and then run when it is challenged?

Again, to assert that it is a possibility with significant chance (because almost anything, at some level of probability, is possible), you would need to have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, especially as it relates to the human genome.

If I put forward an article that claimed that 97% of the bones in our body had absolutely no correlation to bones found in chimps, you would rightfully assume I have a pretty fundamental ignorance of comparative biology.

You are beating a dead horse Wnope. You keep coming at me from the same boring angle. You are way too full of yourself. As I said before, I don't hold anything you say with much weight. You are not credible to me and your views are completely biased. I understand that you are pissed off that I don't follow the mainstream scientific bias, but get over it already. There is plenty of evidence that goes against your views. I'm not gonna list it all. It's a waste of my time, as you would just find some seemingly rational way to judge such evidence as invalid. I would rather use my time and energy on people who are open to possibility and that do not hold a strong bias against such concepts. I don't have time to be wasting on you and your rivalry with me Monkeyboy. I'm married and have better things to do with my time.

Do you hold that eternity is necessary?

Please, Tiel, don't sink to the "my non ddo life pwns yours," it's sad.

I find it interesting you address the issue yet refuse to provide evidence.

Yes, eternity is logical to conclude without error. Also, I don't care how my life compares to yours. The point is that I'm gonna try wasting my time explaining or providing evidence in trying to change your perspective. Your perspective is biased and nobody is going to change it unless they rip your face off with unquestionable and unrefutable evidence that supports an opposing theory. In the end, I just don't have time for such nonsense. Most evidence can be refuted or negated in some way. It's pointless to me. I will give my perspective on things. I'm not going to spend lots of time trying to convince you that my perspective is more true than yours. I've tried such methods in the past with other people and it's pointless. If people are open to an alternative perspective they will ask questions out of open curiosity. Those are the people that I will use my time on. Go find another member to play with. I've grown bored of your same old angle of arguing against me. I don't have much faith in the mainstream scientific bias. Get over it. That's how I feel. You must feel threatened in some way by my logic. Either you find it somewhat logical and this has lead you to want some form of unquestionably true proof to back up my position...or you find what I say false and are just straight up wasting your time by kicking a dead horse. There are plenty of members who assert things you may not agree with. I find it interesting that you have built a personal rivalry with me on almost any position I take. This must mean that you see me as more of a threat than others who hold positions you do not agree with. I can only conclude that this means deep down you find my positions to be somewhat reasonable and possible to be true yourself and you want me to give you any evidence that has convinced my to hold my position more probable than not. This being so that you can try attacking this evidence in an effort to nullify it's validity so that you may hold on to your current view. The view which you have built through your own time and effort, and that makes you feel comfortable in how you see reality. My views threaten this comfort you have built for yourself and this is why you have chosen me for a personal rival.

Well, I'll tell you something monkeyboy....

1.) The current scientific bias isn't as solid in being more probable than not, as you may want to think it is. There are many possible valid and logical theories that can be derived from the same evidence and all of them are probable possibilities.

2.) I have no time for a rivalry and I don't find it entertaining or enjoyable to waste my time trying to convince you of why I find my perspective more probable than not.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 12:25:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 10:40:36 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:41:57 PM, Wnope wrote

Do you hold that eternity is necessary?

Please, Tiel, don't sink to the "my non ddo life pwns yours," it's sad.

I find it interesting you address the issue yet refuse to provide evidence.

Yes, eternity is logical to conclude without error. Also, I don't care how my life compares to yours. The point is that I'm gonna try wasting my time explaining or providing evidence in trying to change your perspective. Your perspective is biased and nobody is going to change it unless they rip your face off with unquestionable and unrefutable evidence that supports an opposing theory. In the end, I just don't have time for such nonsense. Most evidence can be refuted or negated in some way. It's pointless to me. I will give my perspective on things. I'm not going to spend lots of time trying to convince you that my perspective is more true than yours. I've tried such methods in the past with other people and it's pointless. If people are open to an alternative perspective they will ask questions out of open curiosity. Those are the people that I will use my time on. Go find another member to play with. I've grown bored of your same old angle of arguing against me. I don't have much faith in the mainstream scientific bias. Get over it. That's how I feel. You must feel threatened in some way by my logic. Either you find it somewhat logical and this has lead you to want some form of unquestionably true proof to back up my position...or you find what I say false and are just straight up wasting your time by kicking a dead horse. There are plenty of members who assert things you may not agree with. I find it interesting that you have built a personal rivalry with me on almost any position I take. This must mean that you see me as more of a threat than others who hold positions you do not agree with. I can only conclude that this means deep down you find my positions to be somewhat reasonable and possible to be true yourself and you want me to give you any evidence that has convinced my to hold my position more probable than not. This being so that you can try attacking this evidence in an effort to nullify it's validity so that you may hold on to your current view. The view which you have built through your own time and effort, and that makes you feel comfortable in how you see reality. My views threaten this comfort you have built for yourself and this is why you have chosen me for a personal rival.

Well, I'll tell you something monkeyboy....

1.) The current scientific bias isn't as solid in being more probable than not, as you may want to think it is. There are many possible valid and logical theories that can be derived from the same evidence and all of them are probable possibilities.

2.) I have no time for a rivalry and I don't find it entertaining or enjoyable to waste my time trying to convince you of why I find my perspective more probable than not.

I've changed my opinion on scientific matters on quite a few occasions after being presented with the appropriate evidence. That's why I like seeing someone's evidence.

Also, by definition, someone who accepts the scientific method is more open-minded than you are.

You have stated on multiple occasions that you need Evolution to be "proven" to you before you believe that. Because it is impossible to "prove" theories or hypotheses, you are conceding it is all but impossible to change your mind.

Unlike yourself, I will change my opinion was presented with repeated evidence and a falsifiable hypothesis.

So why are you calling me close-minded?

If you don't want to spend time backing up extremist claims, don't post them. I'm not the only one who continually asks you for evidence for your claims.

Also, if Mengele spent time posting on evolutionary theory his ideas about a lack of common descent (and their implications), my comments would be geared towards him.

However, unlike you, Mengeleis honest enough to admit that he holds his opinions strongly (both of you claim that races are the same as sub-species) . You on the other hand, make claims on part with Mengeles then refuse to back them up because they are just "possibilities."

For instance, someone has already pointed out M-Theory, which you have ignored in favor of the statement "eternity is necessary."

If you want to talk about theories better than the Big Bang, how about telling us why M-Theory cannot account for it.

Or, you can just claim random extremist things such as "the universe is necessarily eternal."

You've called black people a subspecies
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:23:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 12:25:21 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/26/2011 10:40:36 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:41:57 PM, Wnope wrote

Do you hold that eternity is necessary?

Please, Tiel, don't sink to the "my non ddo life pwns yours," it's sad.

I find it interesting you address the issue yet refuse to provide evidence.

Yes, eternity is logical to conclude without error. Also, I don't care how my life compares to yours. The point is that I'm gonna try wasting my time explaining or providing evidence in trying to change your perspective. Your perspective is biased and nobody is going to change it unless they rip your face off with unquestionable and unrefutable evidence that supports an opposing theory. In the end, I just don't have time for such nonsense. Most evidence can be refuted or negated in some way. It's pointless to me. I will give my perspective on things. I'm not going to spend lots of time trying to convince you that my perspective is more true than yours. I've tried such methods in the past with other people and it's pointless. If people are open to an alternative perspective they will ask questions out of open curiosity. Those are the people that I will use my time on. Go find another member to play with. I've grown bored of your same old angle of arguing against me. I don't have much faith in the mainstream scientific bias. Get over it. That's how I feel. You must feel threatened in some way by my logic. Either you find it somewhat logical and this has lead you to want some form of unquestionably true proof to back up my position...or you find what I say false and are just straight up wasting your time by kicking a dead horse. There are plenty of members who assert things you may not agree with. I find it interesting that you have built a personal rivalry with me on almost any position I take. This must mean that you see me as more of a threat than others who hold positions you do not agree with. I can only conclude that this means deep down you find my positions to be somewhat reasonable and possible to be true yourself and you want me to give you any evidence that has convinced my to hold my position more probable than not. This being so that you can try attacking this evidence in an effort to nullify it's validity so that you may hold on to your current view. The view which you have built through your own time and effort, and that makes you feel comfortable in how you see reality. My views threaten this comfort you have built for yourself and this is why you have chosen me for a personal rival.

Well, I'll tell you something monkeyboy....

1.) The current scientific bias isn't as solid in being more probable than not, as you may want to think it is. There are many possible valid and logical theories that can be derived from the same evidence and all of them are probable possibilities.

2.) I have no time for a rivalry and I don't find it entertaining or enjoyable to waste my time trying to convince you of why I find my perspective more probable than not.

I've changed my opinion on scientific matters on quite a few occasions after being presented with the appropriate evidence. That's why I like seeing someone's evidence.

Also, by definition, someone who accepts the scientific method is more open-minded than you are.

No, because I also accept the scientific method, as I have stated on multiple occasions. What I don't agree with is the bias theories presented as the most probable by the current mainstream scientific community. I have also clearly stated my position on this on multiple occasions.


You have stated on multiple occasions that you need Evolution to be "proven" to you before you believe that. Because it is impossible to "prove" theories or hypotheses, you are conceding it is all but impossible to change your mind.

No. Fail. I have stated on multiple occasions that I indeed believe in evolution and that I am a Theistic Evolutionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Unlike yourself, I will change my opinion was presented with repeated evidence and a falsifiable hypothesis.

So why are you calling me close-minded?

Your behavior shows you to be more bias than you are stating.


If you don't want to spend time backing up extremist claims, don't post them. I'm not the only one who continually asks you for evidence for your claims.

The problem is that I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that my perspective is more true than anyone else's. I may believe that it is, but I feel no need to convince you of it. I don't really care if you agree with me or not. It has always been a waste of my time to try and convince those that my opposing view is possible and probable. Those people always find some way of not accepting or seriously considering any evidence that I present. If someone is open to an alternative view it will be shown in curious questions, not challenging demands of showing evidence.


Also, if Mengele spent time posting on evolutionary theory his ideas about a lack of common descent (and their implications), my comments would be geared towards him.

However, unlike you, Mengeleis honest enough to admit that he holds his opinions strongly (both of you claim that races are the same as sub-species) . You on the other hand, make claims on part with Mengeles then refuse to back them up because they are just "possibilities."

That's your problem you keep thinking in terms of absolutes, when I don't. I only present my personal perspective, it's up to you to decide how you feel about it. I don't feel any need to prove anything to you or anyone else. You are not any kind of judge over me.

For instance, someone has already pointed out M-Theory, which you have ignored in favor of the statement "eternity is necessary."

I didn't ignore anything.


If you want to talk about theories better than the Big Bang, how about telling us why M-Theory cannot account for it.

I never said that it can't account for it.


Or, you can just claim random extremist things such as "the universe is necessarily eternal."



You've called black people a subspecies

I said that human races are a certain range of genetic classification.

You should really stop putting words into my mouth. You are just making yourself look worse. You obviously don't really understand my position on most topics we have talked about or how my mind works. Your efforts seem to have been wasted thus far.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 4:34:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:21:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 1:59:33 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:44:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Does any scientific theory such as the steady state theory, oscillating universe theory etc, explain the beginning of the Universe better than the Big Bang theory?

If the big bang theory is the most likely explanation, how likely is the Big Crunch?

The multiverse sounds pretty decent.

For most version of the multiverse, I believe the idea is that the universes all came into being at the big bang and diverged from there.

Wrong. I don't know of a single Multiverse theory that says that plus such an assertion would be unfounded and irrational. The big bang applies to just this universe. In Multiverse theories other universes spring into existence with their own big bangs or the other ones emerged from other existing universes.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 9:11:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 3:48:29 AM, Tiel wrote:
In order for everything to have been in a single point and have exploded into some location. The location of the point must have had coordinates inside an already existing location.

Why? Why must location precede matter? How could it? Can you fully define even one coordinate system without reference to multiple points of matter?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.