Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 91 of 301 (465083)
05-02-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by molbiogirl
05-02-2008 7:54 PM


Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes:
Are you afraid to answer the question or are you unable to answer the question?
I answered the question you asked me.
If you have a question ask it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by molbiogirl, posted 05-02-2008 7:54 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 05-02-2008 10:47 PM ICANT has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 301 (465091)
05-02-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
05-02-2008 4:38 PM


Re: Origin
ICant writes:
Here you can find Hawking's definition of singularity.
Hawking writes:
Defnition of Singularity
A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but
can not be embedded in a larger spacetime.
The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk I believe for the purpose of this discussion the singularity would be the point or points when mathematical solutions to space-time equations are undefineable such as T=0 to T=10-43. The physicists are sure to set me straight if mistaken.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 4:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 10:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 93 of 301 (465093)
05-02-2008 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
05-02-2008 8:27 PM


Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
No. You didn't.
To repeat:
If you haven't any problem with Vedic prophecies which preceded xianity, why do you have problems with Islamic prophecies which followed xianity?
You dismissed Muslim prophecies that were "confirmed" by science because ...
I know what Mohammed said. But since he was about 600 years after Jesus and contradicts a lot Jesus taught I don't trust him.
You specifically asked for evidence that "other deities" made scientific predictions. Message 44.
I was asking for references or books from the other deities that told us there was wandering stars that would go dark forever.
I provided not one but two examples.
Answer my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 8:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 11:06 PM molbiogirl has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 94 of 301 (465094)
05-02-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
05-02-2008 10:09 PM


Re: Origin
Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes:
The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk
I was just answering a question concerning me not knowing what a singularity was.
Buzsaw writes:
T=0 to T=10-43.
Buz the amount of time there is, the time it takes for light to travel Planck's length. A Planck's length is the shortest distance that there is.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2008 10:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2008 9:11 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 95 of 301 (465095)
05-02-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by molbiogirl
05-02-2008 10:47 PM


Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes:
Answer my question.
why do you have problems with Islamic prophecies which followed xianity?
There is no such thing as xianity therefore there is no question.
Since xianity does not exist Islamic would have to be before xianity as you or someone like you created it if it exists.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 05-02-2008 10:47 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:01 AM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 96 of 301 (465118)
05-03-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
05-02-2008 11:06 PM


ICANT Suspended One Week
ICANT writes:
There is no such thing as xianity therefore there is no question.
I guess if I asked you to "pls follow the fg", you'd say there's no such thing as "pls" or "fg"?
Given your history I'm giving no warnings. See you in a week.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 11:06 PM ICANT has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 301 (465121)
05-03-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
05-02-2008 10:57 PM


Re: Origin
ICant writes:
Buz the amount of time there is, the time it takes for light to travel Planck's length. A Planck's length is the shortest distance that there is.
And a lot theoretic foundational data is assumed in a Planck's time if that's what the singularity is. The physicists will likely weigh in here if the singularity is not a plank's time to set us straight on that.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 10:57 PM ICANT has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 301 (465125)
05-03-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
05-02-2008 2:05 PM


Re: Origin
There is no point in time at which the Unvierse does not exist.
I do understand this. But I don't think it is very helpful in terms of considering the question at hand.
It is a matter of perspective. That which we call time is as much a part of our universe as is space. If we think of ourselves as beings on the surface of an expanding balloon then from the perspective of those inhabiting this universe the questions 'what came before the beginning of time' or 'when did time start' have no real meaning (North of the North pole etc. etc. and all those other frequently made analogies)
However as humans we are blessed with imagination and abstract thought.
So we can consider our expanding universe not from the point of view of a dweller within the universe restricted to considering time within that universe alone. Instead we can consider this from the perspective where we are removed and external from it.
We can watch our expanding model expanding in 'time' that is external,as are we, to the model itself much as we might watch a balloon expand in ral time and space. If we consider this perspective with this external 'time' -
We can ask ourselves what happened at T=0
We can ask what happened 'before' T=0
Whether this abstract way of looking at the universe bears an even vague relation to any sort of reality or not and whether these questions therefore have any meaning even from this perspective is another quetion. Either way we ceratinly don't have any answers at the moment.
Most models of the unverse are described from the perspective of an observer exteral to the expanding universe. Theories of a multiverse also rely on this sort of perspective.
It therefore seems unfair to me to lambast those who ask questions like 'what was there before T=0' for failing to appreciate that from our limited real life perspective there can exist no such thing. Whilst accurate I dont think it reflects the models and perspective we are asking to be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 2:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 301 (465151)
05-03-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lyx2no
05-02-2008 12:25 AM


Re: Falsifiability
lyx2no writes:
I have no knowledge at all, hence my repeated claim to having no knowledge at all. I do have knowledge after that which I can extrapolate backwards in an iffy fashion and say if this proceeds as it has up to here then zero would be here. This may indeed be wrong which is why I make no further statement about it and don't hold myself to that one.
Hi LikesToKnow. ILyx22. Anyhow, you say in an iffy fashion.
1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable?
2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory?
3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2008 12:25 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 05-03-2008 6:41 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 8:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 100 of 301 (465154)
05-03-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
05-02-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I have never known of a Christian refering to themselves as an Xian.
I've known lots of them. Hie thee to an Orthodox church. You'll see it a lot. Where do you think the following symbol came from?
Or this one:
But then again, they're Greek. What do they know about Christianity? I mean, it isn't like Constantine created it...oh...wait...he did. Well, it's not like it's part of the Unicode character set...oh...wait...it is (character 2627)
quote:
X Does not = Christ.
You're calling the entire Orthodox church wrong? I guess I won't mention the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre, then. They use another combined symbol that isn't ☧ (often called the "labarum"): The tau-phi. It's an abbreviation of "taphos," meaning (and I'm sure we all see this coming) "sepulchre."
And we better get rid of that "alpha and omega" thing because clearly the Greeks have no concept of what it means to be Christian.
I mean, that one's in the Vatican and we all know the Catholics have no concept of Christianity. It isn't like it's called the "monogram of Christ"...oh...wait...it is.
quote:
The word ‘ appears 3 times in the Bible.
And what, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? The use of "X" for Christ isn't about the word "Christian." It's about the word "Christ." It was a common abbreviation for "Christ" and is still in use today.
quote:
The Greek letter C = Ch in english.
Says who? Oh, that is a common transliteration. After all, we spell the name "Christ" and not "Xrist." But like all transliterations, it is simply adopted by convention, not because god declared it to be so. Take a look at enough guide books to Greece, especially older ones, and you'll see it spelled "Cnossos" rather than "Knossos." Classical transliteration uses "C" for kappa, not "K."
Is it "phyllo" dough or "filo"?
quote:
That would be equal to Chian, not Christian.
Except that wasn't the symbol that was chosen. The Greek Christians who came up with the symbol used their own language and since the romanization of Greek includes a letter that looks an awful lot like Χ, we simply used the same grapheme.
quote:
Putting an X in the place of Christ is only getting Christ out of the way as there is no room for him.
Are you seriously claiming the Orthodox don't know their own symbology?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 12:36 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 101 of 301 (465156)
05-03-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICANT
05-02-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Re-NitPick
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Incorrect. That's not what "innumerable" means.
in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I find:
Main Entry: in·nu·mer·a·ble
Date: 14th century
: too many to be numbered
And since when did dictionaries become proscriptive?
I notice you have completely ignored the rest of my post:
Rrhain writes:
There are not an infinite number of stars. Therefore, you can number them.
Do not confuse the difficulty of the task with impossibility.
Now, do you think you can come to terms with understanding the difference between a difficult task and an impossible one?
Besides, that wasn't what you were talking about. Your own words:
ICANT writes:
That simply means there are too many to be numbered. To number them you would have to count them. Not extimate them.
But you can number them. You can count them. It is an extremely difficult task, but difficult is not the same as impossible.
Still don't remember your own words? Here they are again (Message 39):
ICANT writes:
Stars are born all the time so, how can they have a finite number?
Still going to insist you weren't referring to an "infinite" amount? How is one supposed to interpret "how can they have a finite number"? Were you, perhaps, meaning "fixed"? If so, that still doesn't help your cause. Mutable numbers are still countable. The population of a country is in flux due to births, deaths, immigration, and emigration, but that hardly means you can't count the number of people in the country at any given time.
quote:
Now if you think the task is possible have at it.
I see you have confused "difficult" with "impossible" again.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 12:46 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 102 of 301 (465164)
05-03-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
05-02-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Origin
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Huh? What do you mean "appearing"? Are you implying that it isn't?
The universe did not exist at T=0.
The universe is at T=10-43.
Huh? What does this have to do with the expansion of the universe? That's what my comment was about. You said, and I quote (Message 62):
ICANT writes:
Unless you can get it to magic like the universe appearing expanding.
And I responded that the universe doesn't simply "appear" to be expanding. It actually is. We can measure that expansion via the red-shift. And given our current measurements, it appears that the expansion is accelerating.
What does the origin of the universe have to do with this?
quote:
The universe does not exist and one Planck time later it does sounds like magic to me.
OK, since you seem to want to avoid the original topic of discussion:
Why? Applying electricity to a piece of glass and being able to see a recording of a moon landing sounds like magic to me, but it isn't.
The simple fact of the matter is we don't know how the universe came into being. But what that has to do with how the universe behaves after it came into existence is beyond me. Once again, you seem to be engaging in the common creationist fallacy that since we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.
quote:
It had to appear from somewhere or did it.
Why? The Casimir Effect shows us that no, not everything comes from something. Sometimes, things just appear.
Note, this does not mean I am saying that the universe is just one big example of the Casimir Effect. I am simply pointing out that your assumption about the way the universe works is false. Since sometimes things just appear, it is not beyond the pale, in and of itself, to consider the possibility that the universe simply came into being on its own.
After all, what's to stop it?
quote:
Come from an absence of anything.
Why not?
Be specific and show your work.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 1:03 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 103 of 301 (465165)
05-03-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Buzsaw
05-03-2008 5:00 PM


Buzsaw's Word String Theory
1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable?
Partially, but your . um . series of ordered words has a bigger failing in regard to falsifiability when God has the ability to change the out come of any possible prediction to either fit or fail. My hypothesis for the interval 0T10-43 doesn’t meet the standard of falsifiability because it doesn’t exist.
2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory?
How would I know how much of the foundational date to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) is assumed from the unfalsifiable Plank Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43? I'm not the one who made it up. (Just between you and me, if you google one of these theories and only your name comes up associated with it, it's not likely reliable.) Science, however, doesn’t use unknowns as foundations for stuff except I Don’t Know (IDK).
3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe.
I hope it was your hat that you pulled this out of instead of where Rahvin is likely to suggest. But why are the distances between things in the Universe increasing?

Kindly
Ta-da ≠ QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2008 5:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2008 7:13 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2008 7:34 PM lyx2no has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 301 (465166)
05-03-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
05-02-2008 1:26 PM


Re: Re-NitPick
ICANT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
You quoted exactly what I said: The Bible claims the universe is big. It does not say that it is still expanding.
I need chapter and verse in the Bible as I can't find where the Bible says it is big.
Huh? What part of "you quoted exactly what I said" are you having trouble with? The chapter and verse you are looking for is the one you gave.
quote:
Science says that in time a white dwarf will become a black dwarf when there is an absence of light. It will be dark forever.
Huh? You do realize that a "black dwarf" is only a theoretical star, yes? That the time it would take for a star to become inert is longer than the age of the universe, yes? And that even then, that estimation assumes that protons don't decay and that there are no WIMPs. And that even then, the cosmic background radiation would have cooled off, too, and thus the stars would still shine.
quote:
quote:
Are you seriously claiming that there was no such thing as journalism before the invention of the TV? And that the Bible "prophesied" journalism?
I said before satellite TV it would be impossible for the world to see the bodies of two men lying in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days.
That doesn't answer the question. Journalism is what allows the world to see anything beyond what's in front of their faces. Are you saying there was no such thing as journalism before the invention of satellite TV? That the only way to see anything is through the use of satellite TV?
quote:
quote:
Except it isn't. Let's not play dumb here. The gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same god. Why do you think there is such strife in the Middle East?
First I said they claim.
(*chuckle*)
Just who are "they"? Go ask the Jews whether or not they follow the "same god" as Christians and see how many positive responses you get. There's that little thing about Jesus being the son of god that tends to get in the way.
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes:
Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism
"Judeo-Christian" as a term meaning "common religious heritage" was an invention of Eisenhower as a means of distinguishing the United States from those "godless Soviets." And he only did that because we had so recently come out of WWII and Judaism was in the public consciousness.
quote:
Strife in the Middle East is caused because one brother stole the birthright of the older brother.
Right. WWII and the creation of Israel has nothing to do with it.
quote:
It will continue until Jesus comes back and sets up His kingdom on earth.
Huh? Where do we read anything in the Bible about Islam? Besides, Jesus said that was supposed to happen about 2000 years ago. After all, he told numerous people that they would live to see it. So unless you're saying that there are 2000-year-old people running around, that prophecy failed a long time ago.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2008 1:26 PM ICANT has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 301 (465167)
05-03-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by lyx2no
05-03-2008 6:41 PM


Properties of Space Relative To This Topic
Lyx2no writes:
I hope it was your hat that you pulled this out of instead of where Rahvin is likely to suggest. But why are the distances between things in the Universe increasing?
Neither hat nor arse. Imo that space has no properties capable of expansion is refutable and better minds than mine would agree to that, though likely too off topic to debate here in depth.
The increase of distances relative to things in the observable area of the universe could be effected by work of the designer/creator, could be temporal and/or regional relative to the entire observable and non-observable ares of the universe.
Imo expansionists assume too much uniformability relative to how the uiverse was billions of years far removed.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by lyx2no, posted 05-03-2008 6:41 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 8:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024