• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God vs. The Big Bang

German guy said:
In this sense, science never claims infallability in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem here is that there have been so many posts that some people have got confused & are trying to argue against things that havent been said.

In this case I'm not claiming that science has said it's infallable, in fact in several posts I've made it quite clear that what I'm discussing is some of it's congregation who, while baiting religous people display the same models of behaviour & treat science in a religious way (in another post I also point out this is also applicable to certain followers of various philosophies & ideologies too).

I think because I "baited" some of my early posts in a similar way to how some aetheists might a religious type (I did it that way because the parrallels amused me) a few people perhaps missed the undertones of the post & perhaps reacted to the "bait", which in a way kind of makes my initial point for me.
 
Paul Austin said:
I'm quite sure you do believe that
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure with a PhD in physics, it's true. Less you have a PhD in the hard sciences, do you?

Paul Austin said:
No, but I did & you've been telling me how wrong I am & how little I know, & how great you are.

Anything else to add or is this just going to go around in circles from here on in?
Click to expand...

I'm still asking for the self-consistent theory which better explains the observables than the Big Bang. You gonna provide it, or are you only capable of deflection arguments?
 
Ikari said:
I'm pretty sure with a PhD in physics, it's true. Less you have a PhD in the hard sciences, do you?
Click to expand...

How did I know that would be your answer?

Btw. Before you take offense thats not to question your qualification, just an observation of how readable your position was.

Of course I could lie at this point and say that both of my PhD's were in the hard sciences, but I'm not going to as I'm not that way inclined.

I could also use a clever slight of hand, point to one of my published scientific papers, & how it was used in a political capacity by a couple of governments, without pointing out that was in genetics & forensic sciences.

But I'll be straight as an arrow for you & say I dont have a single physics qualification, in fact, & this is going to amuse you, I didnt even study physics at high school.

Mind you I didnt study genetics & forensic sciences at high school either.

So you are right in your belief that you have more qualifications than me in physics, & seeing as I dont have one, & as previously mentioned I always assumed you did, I never doubted that part of things, but then again we're not talking about qualifications are we?

I mean one of us seems to be sitting here up to date on the latest works of the likes of Penrose et. al. & one of us doesnt...
 
Ikari said:
Got that self-consistent model that explains the observables better than the Big Bang yet?
Click to expand...

I see you're dropping the line about me not knowing about science then?

As for your question, I refer you to my previous posts in this thread.
 
Paul Austin said:
I see you're dropping the line about me not knowing about science then?

As for your question, I refer you to my previous posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

The one where you didn't present the self-consistent model that explains the observables better than the Big Bang? Even though you claim the Big Bang has been made defunk. That post? The one where you couldn't back up what your mouth was saying? Yeah, I saw that one. I'm trying to get you to stop deflection tactics and answer a question since you decree the Big Bang Theory dead.
 
Also, I'm going to help you out with a few things. Penrose does not say the Big Bang didn't happen. His theory is that the Big Bang didn't start the Universe, it started ours, but one existed before ours and one will exist after ours as well.

Have scientists seen evidence of time before the Big Bang, and perhaps a verification of the idea of the cyclical universe? One of the great physicists of our time, Roger Penrose from the University of Oxford, has published a new paper saying that the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that space and time perhaps did not originate at the Big Bang but that our universe continually cycles through a series of “aeons,” and we have an eternal, cyclical cosmos. His paper also refutes the idea of inflation, a widely accepted theory of a period of very rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.
Penrose says that inflation cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was thought to have been created. He and his co-author do not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, but instead, that event was just one in a series of many. Each “Big Bang” marked the start of a new aeon, and our universe is just one of many in a cyclical Universe, starting a new universe in place of the one before.
Penrose’s co-author, Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia, analyzed seven years’ worth of microwave data from WMAP, as well as data from the BOOMERanG balloon experiment in Antarctica. Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have identified regions in the microwave sky where there are concentric circles showing the radiation’s temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere.
These circles allow us to “see through” the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. The circles were created when black holes “encountered” or collided with a previous aeon.


Read more: Penrose: WMAP Shows Evidence of
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
The one where you didn't present the self-consistent model that explains the observables better than the Big Bang? Even though you claim the Big Bang has been made defunk. That post? The one where you couldn't back up what your mouth was saying? Yeah, I saw that one. I'm trying to get you to stop deflection tactics and answer a question since you decree the Big Bang Theory dead.
Click to expand...

You honestly dont get it do you?

Btw. You seem the sensitive type so I better clarify that is a question & not an insult.

As I said previously, I refer you to my previous posts (the real ones, not any misrepresentations).

Please, read them first, then reply, that way there are no silly circles.
 
Paul Austin said:
You honestly dont get it do you?

Btw. You seem the sensitive type so I better clarify that is a question & not an insult.

As I said previously, I refer you to my previous posts (the real ones, not any misrepresentations).

Please, read them first, then reply, that way there are no silly circles.
Click to expand...

What I honestly don't get is that you decree the Big Bang dead, bring up two names of scientists who do not discount the Big Bang, and then engage in deflection when called on it. Can you produce the model or can't you? That's all I'm asking. Do you have anything to back up that mouth, or is it all just hot air?
 
Ikari said:
Also, I'm going to help you out with a few things.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that patronizing post.

I know exactly what Roger has said thank you (& all without the aid of google).

Seriously are you actually going to read my posts, or do you just wish to waste my time?
 
Paul Austin said:
Thanks for that patronizing post.

I know exactly what Roger has said thank you (& all without the aid of google).

Seriously are you actually going to read my posts, or do you just wish to waste my time?
Click to expand...

So you claim that Roger refutes the Big Bang, but when presented with evidence where he says it happens, it's just not the start of everything, you give weaksauce deflection statements again. how weak. Learn science, come back
 
Paul Austin said:
That would be Sir Roger too you, I would imagine.

As for the rest, I repeat, read my previous post.
Click to expand...

I read it, it answers nothing. All you can do is come in here, lie and claim nonsense, and then deflect when called on it.

pretending you understand science, but you obviously don't understand the point where evidence and argument is necessary. Nor does it discount anything that I've said. You came at me when I said that the Big Bang Theory is the theory which best describes the observables. You went all "No! Rodger and blah don't believe in the Big Bang", which isn't true.

So again, learn science. Don't come back until you have. Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere with me.
 
Ikari said:
I read it
Click to expand...

Of course you did. You went & read all my posts in this thread, thought about them, & then returned to post your ad hominem laden diatribe all inside of less than two minutes (going by post times)?

Righty ho! If you say so.

As for the rest of your post I have no interest in exchanging ad hominems.
 
Paul Austin said:
Of course you did. You went & read all my posts in this thread, thought about them, & then returned to post your ad hominem laden diatribe all inside of less than two minutes (going by post times)?

Righty ho! If you say so.

As for the rest of your post I have no interest in exchanging ad hominems.
Click to expand...

I read them as I responded. You decreed the Big Bang Theory dead and tried to back it with scientists who do not discount the Big Bang. I said the Big Bang is the theory which currently best explains the observables, you said no. I tried to get you to actually prove what you are saying, and this is all I get. Pages of deflection because you cannot back up what you say. So keep deflecting and proving me right.
 
Paul Austin said:
The big bangs out of date, even one of the originators of the theory now fully admits its full of holes & there are better ideas out there.

Dont put blind faith in science!
Click to expand...

No, it can't be true. Holes in a theory about something that happened 14 BILLION years ago? Creationists must be right.
 
iguanaman said:
No, it can't be true. Holes in a theory about something that happened 14 BILLION years ago? Creationists must be right.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's been his claim the entire time, but he can't back it up. These "better ideas" do not preclude the Big Bang. He pretends the Big Bang was invented without measurement first, which is wrong. Then he claims certain scientists have discredited the Big Bang, which is incorrect. And at no point was he able to provide a self-consistent model which better explains the observables.
 
iguanaman said:
No, it can't be true. Holes in a theory about something that happened 14 BILLION years ago? Creationists must be right.
Click to expand...

Nope (& if you keep reading through the thread you'll see I actually make clear that isnt what I'm saying at all).
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. That's been his claim the entire time, but he can't back it up.
Click to expand...

Wow you are so clever & have me so worked out, Mr scientist.

Yes, indeed, I am non-christian creationist who has been defending creationism through out this thread, that you managed to read in two minutes.

The fact that Ive stated I am neither a christian, nor a creationist shouldnt distract from this wonderful deduction of yours and proves beyond all reasonable doubt you are the greatest scientest on the planet & own the internets.

Now Im sure there must be someone else you can be throwing ad hominems at...
 
Paul Austin said:
Wow you are so clever & have me so worked out, Mr scientist.
Click to expand...

That's Dr. Scientist to you, I would imagine.

Paul Austin said:
Yes, indeed, I am non-christian creationist who has been defending creationism through out this thread, that you managed to read in two minutes.

The fact that Ive stated I am neither a christian, nor a creationist shouldnt distract from this wonderful deduction of yours and proves beyond all reasonable doubt you are the greatest scientest on the planet & own the internets.

Now Im sure there must be someone else you can be throwing ad hominems at...
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with what you said and your inability to defend it nor the dishonesty employed to try to prove it.
 
Ikari said:
That's Dr. Scientist to you, I would imagine.
Click to expand...

The more you post the more I begin to doubt it...

None of this has anything to do with what you said
Click to expand...

But thats the point, very little of what youre posting does, but its not stopped the ad hominems, the insults, & the silly claims.

But youd know that if only you'd read.

Thats kind of why Im virtually ignoring your posts now & just batting them back with a dose of sarcasm.

You moved beyond meriting that a good while ago.

Surely even you can understand that?

I mean why would I take posts seriously when they cant be bothered to read, make stuff up, toss out insults & ad hominems & even try to imply Im something as ludicrous as a non-christian creationist?

Do you really think Im going to engage in serious discourse with that?
 
Paul Austin said:
Do you really think Im going to engage in serious discourse with that?
Click to expand...

No I don't. I think you can't back up anything you've said. You've been called on it and all you can do is use these deflections to avoid answering the question I've posed to you several times. Thanks for proving my point...again.
 
Ikari said:
No I don't.
Click to expand...

But it hasnt stopped you ignoring the reasons and replacing it with this little fairy tale again & again:

Thanks for proving my point...again.
Click to expand...

Yes, because ignoring you because of your ad hominems, & fairy tales about me being a creationist etc proves your point.

Glad you think so.
 
Paul Austin said:
But it hasnt stopped you ignoring the reasons and replacing it with this little fairy tale again & again:



Yes, because ignoring you because of your ad hominems, & fairy tales about me being a creationist etc proves your point.

Glad you think so.
Click to expand...

I never said you were a creationist. Please stop lying. I said you didn't understand science, which you obviously have some problems with. You tried to discredit the Big Bang, but the names of scientists you offer didn't discount the big bang at all. You tried to claim that the Big Bang Theory was invented before measurement, and that too is false. I've shown you every time where you were wrong. You took contention with my statement that the Big Bang Theory is currently the theory which best explains the observables, but you can offer no other theory to do a better job. So all we have is you making false claims and then deflecting anything which tries to get you to answer to your own statements. Just try to be a little honest, that's all I'm asking for. A bit of intellectual honesty into arguments shouldn't be such a scandal.
 
The Big Bang is no more rational than the existence of God. A Godless theory is just as illusory as a religious belief. Both require faith. The world's leading scientist thought the earth was flat, and then that the universe orbited the earth--knowing more than they did does not make you right, just equally arrogant IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom