Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,580 Year: 4,837/9,624 Month: 185/427 Week: 98/85 Day: 3/2 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 2 of 305 (663505)
05-24-2012 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zaius137
05-23-2012 7:09 PM


Hi Zaius,
Great proposal, all it needs is a link to the source of your quote. You might want to fix the quote's spelling error, too, which comes from the original. I've never seen "wage" used as a verb before, but I'm sure the dog isn't happy about it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zaius137, posted 05-23-2012 7:09 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:37 AM Admin has replied
 Message 4 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:52 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 5 of 305 (663508)
05-25-2012 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by zaius137
05-25-2012 1:37 AM


zaius137 writes:
I apologized for the misuse of quotation around a paragraph I had written myself.
Ah, I see. I noticed that the same paragraph had been posted last year over at Error | Christian Forums, but taking a closer look now I see that you were the author.
There is one minor concern I have that relates to all the negative response this topic has already generated; is this normal?
It's regrettable that people jeer a post still in the promotion process instead of waiting for promotion. Many here think I should turn off jeering and only keep cheering enabled, and I agree with them. I only keep jeering enabled because this website also serves as a test platform for the dBoard software.
But the jeers do seem well founded to me. It's one thing to be aware of the evidence and have good reasons for questioning it, but quite another to be unaware of the evidence while drawing conclusions anyway. I can't be sure, of course, but your comments associating the origins of theories concerning dark energy and dark matter with the human imagination while not giving any indication of awareness of the evidence behind them could likely be what drew the jeers.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by zaius137, posted 05-25-2012 1:37 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 9:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 305 (663510)
05-25-2012 6:10 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Creation cosmology and the Big Bang thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 179 of 305 (666010)
06-20-2012 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Dr Adequate writes:
Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?
Not really what we're looking for, but of course you knew that. I prefer that suspensions be preceded by warnings, and now that prerequisite is satisfied.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2012 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 207 of 305 (666266)
06-25-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by onifre
06-25-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
onifre writes:
The SPACE between the galaxies is expand at a rate FASTER THAN LIGHT CAN TRAVEL.
It might help Zaius if you explained how far apart galaxies must be before this is true.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by onifre, posted 06-25-2012 10:57 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by onifre, posted 06-25-2012 4:28 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(8)
Message 255 of 305 (666426)
06-27-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 6:54 AM


Admin Request
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
My friend...
I know Zaius started it, but its use seems to be growing, so I have to ask: is it just me, or is this an incredibly condescending way to begin a message.
...by relativity I mean the deepest underlying principle of relativity which is that everything is related to everything else and that the relation is following strict ratios and not a particular doctrine such as GR.
Would you mind using the same meaning of the term relativity that everyone else is using? When you need to talk about relatedness you should probably actually write "relatedness," not relativity.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 6:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 12:11 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 265 of 305 (666478)
06-27-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Admin Request
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
No, I mean what I mean.
And I mean what I said. This isn't a discussion. Please use the same meanings of words as everyone else. In this thread relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity, not relatedness.
If you would like to have a discussion about expanding the definition of relativity to include concepts of relatedness then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 12:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 7:26 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 281 of 305 (666511)
06-28-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 7:26 AM


Re: Admin Request
Hi Alfred,
First, there is no need to respond to moderator messages, unless they request a response.
Second, about this:
Ok, as you wish so I will propose a new thread on whether the big bunk hypothesis has got anything to with Minkowski and Einstein relativity.
That's not what I said. You were using your own personal definition of relativity. If you would like to propose a thread to argue for the advantages of your definition over the current one you are welcome to do so, but in this thread, unless otherwise noted, qualified or modified, relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity.
You may also propose a thread to discuss your ideas about the big bunk being unrelated to Minkowski and Einsteinian relativity if that's what you'd like to do, but that wasn't what I suggested.
I have stepped in as moderator simply because there can be no constructive discussion while people insist on using different definitions of the same word. What matters to me isn't whether or not the Big Bang is bunk, but clear communication. Relativity already has a definition in cosmological contexts, and that's the definition we will use in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 7:26 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 282 of 305 (666512)
06-28-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 7:16 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
First, ropes- that's not my idea, that's Bill Gaede's hypothesis. So talk to him and tell him that.
If you introduce an idea into a thread then you're expected to address reactions to it yourself.
The goal here at EvC Forum is discussions that actually get somewhere. All evidence and argument should appear in messages in your own words (some quoting is fine) and not be in the form of references or instructions to go elsewhere.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 7:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein 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